6 ms·
Human moves tend to fit a narrative and be explainable, although often for very concrete reasons. For example: "I am sketching out territory while attacking an
by dfan 10y ago
Human moves tend to fit a narrative and be explainable, although often for very concrete reasons. For example:
"I am sketching out territory while attacking an opponent group."
"I am making my group safe so that I will not have to worry about its life while I accomplish other strategic goals."
"I am making a very strong group so that I can use it to make it harder for my opponent to accomplish anything."
Master, on the other hand, will sometimes seemingly just plop stones down in the middle of the board in a way that is hard to assign a narrative to. One can list a bunch of ways that the stone might come in handy in various futures, but it's too "vague" a move to be played with confidence by a human professional go player.
Of course, human strategies may change in response...
- jorblumesea 10y agoThis is usually called the metagame and evolves over time. My guess is that due to these unseen tactics the metagame will change and human playstyle will become more AI-like and adapt to the changing circumstances. The real question is whether people would be able to keep pace with rapidly changing AI playstyles?
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago> The real question is whether people would be able to keep pace with rapidly changing AI playstyles? If we're far enough from "perfect play", then the answer is no.
- rtkwe 10y agoDepends on if people can figure out how to evaluate the more random seeming 'AI style' moves. With the complexity of Go it's possible to only way to really tackle the complexity is to wrap groups of moves together in a local narrative.
- Florin_Andrei 10y agoWhen playing against a much stronger player, it's always very hard to figure out why they play tenuki (make a move somewhere else on the board, apparently uncorrelated to the current fight). When AI gets strong enough (and it seems like it has already), it will just tenuki everyone all the time, while winning. Sounds like exactly what's happening already. It's past the event horizon for human understanding.
- Diederich 10y ago> past the event horizon for human understanding I think this phrase is going to pop up more and more frequently.
- eutectic 10y agoThis thread is literally the only Google search result for this phrase (for me)...
- Diederich 10y agoI searched for it in incognito mode and saw the same. Pretty interesting; it's such a nice, catchy phrase.
- gohrt 10y ago"Outside the light cone" is more on point -- it's far enough away or moving fast enough that we'll never be able catch up.
- cLeEOGPw 10y ago> It's past the event horizon for human understanding. AlphaGo creators could "rewind" the whole program state to that move and inspect the tree search probabilities according to the board states it looks through to find a list of board states that generate a cumulative highest probability of wining by doing a move in that exact odd spot. My guess would be that while humans tend to put stones with a single, double, or sometimes triple "reason", or in AI words, "high probability of local effectiveness in upcoming several turns", AlphaGo, with his ability to see further, can see past the local effectiveness into more global effectiveness and higher probability of winning further down the road. In other words, those tenuki moves might actually be past the event horizon of human understanding, but only if inspected by looking at them and thinking ourselves. If we use AlphaGo itself, it should be possible to find out the reason for every single tenuki it will ever do.
- panic 10y agoTo be fair, humans haven't had a lot of time to analyze AlphaGo's play. It's possible that we could understand these moves after some study.
- seanwilson 10y ago> Human moves tend to fit a narrative and be explainable, although often for very concrete reasons. I'm not a Go player, but could it not be that if the AI played its moved in a more human order you could see what was going on and assign a narrative to the moves, but the AI can see the order of the moves doesn't matter sometimes so it seems to play more vaguely/randomly to observers? For example, say the AI played a set of moves at the top of the board that you could give an attacking narrative to and then it plays a set of moves at the bottom of the board that you could give an defensive narrative to. If you intermixed the move order for both narratives you, it seems like the AI is playing in a nonhuman way when really its moves have a narrative but humans are too fixated on the move ordering.
- Florin_Andrei 10y agoYou call it narrative when you understand what's going on. You call it chaos when it's far above your head.
- skmurphy 10y agoGood insight, I think there are implications for the Cynefin framework model that offers four possible state spaces: simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic. This classification may have as much to do with our state of information (or depth of understanding) as an objectively "chaotic state."
- xanderstrike 10y agoMore likely, playing it in order commits to a certain approach too early, and makes that approach predictable. Starting from the middle leaves other options open. Given that it trains against a copy of itself, with equivalent predictive powers, it makes sense that it would pick moves that have lots of branching possibilities because that would increase its effectiveness against itself.
- derefr 10y agoI've heard a similar approach described in military strategy at all levels: rather than looking for a single dominant tactic, you try with each "move" to create so many potentially-viable future positionings at once that your opponent cannot predict you in order to effectively concentrate their effort. It'd be very scary to watch a "sibling" to AlphaGo play a 4X game.