3 ms·
It's important to keep in mind the exact quantity of "more practice". Current mechanisms of reinforcement learning are not very data-efficient, which means that
by sqrt17 8y ago
It's important to keep in mind the exact quantity of "more practice". Current mechanisms of reinforcement learning are not very data-efficient, which means that often humans will learn faster than bots. It will still allow bots to discover any unrealistic advantage they have over humans (e.g. faster micromanagement), but if the game is fair and experience to learn from is limited, humans may still prevail.
To "beat" Atari games, AIs trained using reinforcement learning had to put in significantly more than the 10k hours one would expect a human to put in in order to become expert. So, AIs won't beat humans in tasks where training data is costly; however these cases are not interesting to researchers and hence you won't hear from the respective results.
- drusepth 8y agoTo follow this thought, it's also worth pointing out that AIs also have an advantage of parallelization over humans in many cases. What might take an AI 100k hours can often be achieved in ~10k hours in parallel across 10 machines. This is what enables the current system to train over 180 years worth of games every day.