3 ms·
> But the hockey-stick takeoff The hockey stick is lying horizontally though instead of vertically. If it took 3 days to go from 0 to beating the top player in
by arikrak 9y ago
> But the hockey-stick takeoff
The hockey stick is lying horizontally though instead of vertically. If it took 3 days to go from 0 to beating the top player in the world, I wouldn't have expected it to take 21 days to beat next version. I guess something happens at the top levels of Go that make training much harder.
On another note, I didn't look at the details closely but it seems AlphaGo Zero needed much less compute training time than Alpha Go Master. Could getting rid of any human inputs really make it that much more efficient? That implies it will be able to have an impact in many different areas, which is a bit scary...
(Updated - it took 3 days to beat the top player in the world.)
- gizmo686 9y agoThis type of curve is what I would expect out of machine learning. At first there is rapid improvement as it learns the easy lessons. The rate then slows down as further incremental improvements become less impact. What is, perhaps, surprising is that human play happens to be relatively close to the asymptote. Although this could be explained by Alphago being the first system to beat humans. If its peek performance were orders of magnitude higher than humans, a weaker program would have already beaten us.
- kazagistar 9y agoThe horizontal hockey stick makes sense to me in terms of learning. Each increased layer of of understanding a complex system could mean a potentially exponentially increasing difficulty.