3 ms·
I don't see anything wrong with them using existing tech. Most technology is iterative. It's like saying going to the moon isn't impressive because rockets are
by Houshalter 11y ago
I don't see anything wrong with them using existing tech. Most technology is iterative. It's like saying going to the moon isn't impressive because rockets are 20 year old tech.
NNs have shown a lot of promise in the last few years. They are just starting to make their way to new applications like Go playing. So in that sense AlphaGo is a sign of things to come.
- argonaut 11y agoNot a great analogy, because during the Space Race, hundreds of technologies were invented. Google would be hard-pressed to patent any of the specific component technologies in AlphaGo, if they wished to.
- colllectorof 11y ago> NNs have shown a lot of promise in the last few years. Which is interesting in its own right, since ANNs have been the subject of research for more than half a century. If anything, all their ups and downs should make people more cautious about bold predictions.
- gcp 11y agoMonte Carlo Go was also known and researched for a long while before the breakthrough came in 2006 (how to combine it with tree search).
- chongli 11y agoRockets are nearly a millennium old technology. Having said that, it's not all that impressive that rockets are able to go to the moon: that's what we built them to do! It'd be far more impressive if AlphaGo somehow built a rocket all by itself and went to the moon because they has nothing to do with what it was built for. That's the thing: AlphaGo is more like a rocket than it is like us. It can play a game better than all of us but it can't do anything else.