>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 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...