3 ms·

At least initial reports are that alphaGo Zero is more human-like than Master. Zero packs even more of the inhuman ability to pick the most critical part of the

At least initial reports are that alphaGo Zero is more human-like than Master. Zero packs even more of the inhuman ability to pick the most critical part of the board for each move, but less weird looking stuff. In fact, one of the obvious differences between AlphaGo Zero and top human players, is much more play on safe opening spots, which has been out of fashion among human pros for a hundred years or so.

zone411 9y ago
Interesting. It may be possible that while the style of play of Master is able to exploit the errors of human players easily and score convincing victories by many stones, Zero is closer to playing Go perfectly, even if it means winning by one stone. There is a chance that Zero would not score such convincing victories over humans as Master but is much less exploitable. If a strong player plays obvious novices (and humans are now at a level of novices compared to these programs), it doesn't have to worry about taking more unsound risks.
gizmo686 9y ago
>At least initial reports are that alphaGo Zero is more human-like than Master. Empirically, this is not correct. The original AlphaGo achieved a 57% accuracy at predicting expert moves. I can't find an exact number, but based on the graph in the nature article, AlphaGo Zero has a less than 50% accuracy at predicting human moves. Eyeballing the graph, it looks like the supervized learning variant of AlphaGo Zero scored <55% at predicting human moves. Better than reinforcement learning AlphaGo Zero, but still worse then the original AlphaGo. Of course, it is not clear that ability to predict the move humans will play is the best metric to measure how human like a computer plays. It is just the only objective metric we have. Although, if this were an actual research question, we could probably come up with better metrics. https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/alphago/AlphaGoNaturePaper.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/alphago/AlphaG... https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/pdf/nature24270.pdf https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/pdf/nature2...
- taneq 9y ago
  I'd have thought the metric to watch was "% of moves made which seemed kooky to human experts", not "% of human experts moves with which the program agrees."

zone411 9y ago

Interesting. It may be possible that while the style of play of Master is able to exploit the errors of human players easily and score convincing victories by many stones, Zero is closer to playing Go perfectly, even if it means winning by one stone. There is a chance that Zero would not score such convincing victories over humans as Master but is much less exploitable. If a strong player plays obvious novices (and humans are now at a level of novices compared to these programs), it doesn't have to worry about taking more unsound risks.

gizmo686 9y ago

>At least initial reports are that alphaGo Zero is more human-like than Master. Empirically, this is not correct. The original AlphaGo achieved a 57% accuracy at predicting expert moves. I can't find an exact number, but based on the graph in the nature article, AlphaGo Zero has a less than 50% accuracy at predicting human moves. Eyeballing the graph, it looks like the supervized learning variant of AlphaGo Zero scored <55% at predicting human moves. Better than reinforcement learning AlphaGo Zero, but still worse then the original AlphaGo. Of course, it is not clear that ability to predict the move humans will play is the best metric to measure how human like a computer plays. It is just the only objective metric we have. Although, if this were an actual research question, we could probably come up with better metrics. https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/alphago/AlphaGoNaturePaper.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/alphago/AlphaG... https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/pdf/nature24270.pdf https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/pdf/nature2...

taneq 9y ago
I'd have thought the metric to watch was "% of moves made which seemed kooky to human experts", not "% of human experts moves with which the program agrees."