5 ms·

Many comments seem to miss the real significance of this. This is not a joseki dictionary, and it doesn't play 50+ moves for you. This is AlphaGo Master's expl

Many comments seem to miss the real significance of this. This is not a joseki dictionary, and it doesn't play 50+ moves for you. This is AlphaGo Master's explanation of how it sees the opening. Humans have a very good understanding of endgames, and we might understand opening in a single corner, but when it comes to whole board knowledge, we are way worse than AlphaGo is. As it happens, AlphaGo disagrees with human play a whole lot, just in this subset. There's well known fuseki strategies played by professionals that AlphaGo thinks are downright terrible, and it shows lines of how it would play against them. Sure, it'd be nice to have even more moves and alternatives, but this is really nice, as it helps us in the parts of the game where we are the weakest. Compare this to what Alpha Zero is teaching us about chess: It has interesting opinions regarding a few openings (Goodbye French Defense) but ultimately it's saying that our opening knowledge is very sound, but that it will not just crush humans, but traditional chess programs in the middle game.

smallnamespace 9y ago
When an AI is demonstrably so far beyond human ability that to even comprehend it requires the AI to help explain itself, you start to take Singularity futurists a bit more seriously.
- romaniv 9y ago
  This doesn't make sense. Computers do stuff that people don't "comprehend" all the time. In fact, in the past, one of the fundamental appeals and drives behind AI was to make systems that could explain themselves, not requiring complex analysis and experiments to understand what's going on. (And vice vera, systems that could understand humans without programming.)
  - smallnamespace 9y ago
    > make systems that could explain themselves Yes, but currently the systems we are building have no sense of will or agency. If we succeed in building systems that do have more complex objectives, then how can we be sure that the human and machine's objectives are aligned? How can you be sure the system is explaining itself to you in an honest way? Note that there were two different goals in building computers and software: 1) building things that have full control over and 2) building things that are more and more clever and useful. In the limit, those two goals can come into sharp conflict.

smallnamespace 9y ago

When an AI is demonstrably so far beyond human ability that to even comprehend it requires the AI to help explain itself, you start to take Singularity futurists a bit more seriously.

romaniv 9y ago
This doesn't make sense. Computers do stuff that people don't "comprehend" all the time. In fact, in the past, one of the fundamental appeals and drives behind AI was to make systems that could explain themselves, not requiring complex analysis and experiments to understand what's going on. (And vice vera, systems that could understand humans without programming.)
- smallnamespace 9y ago
  > make systems that could explain themselves Yes, but currently the systems we are building have no sense of will or agency. If we succeed in building systems that do have more complex objectives, then how can we be sure that the human and machine's objectives are aligned? How can you be sure the system is explaining itself to you in an honest way? Note that there were two different goals in building computers and software: 1) building things that have full control over and 2) building things that are more and more clever and useful. In the limit, those two goals can come into sharp conflict.