4 ms·

The difference is humans have principles. A good analogy is intuition. If someone says AlphaZero has developed a strong intuition for chess, I have no issue wi

by ikeboy 8y ago

The difference is humans have principles. A good analogy is intuition. If someone says AlphaZero has developed a strong intuition for chess, I have no issue with that, and to the extent human chess is based on intuition comparison is fair. But to portray humans as having chess principles, then say AlphaZero has new ones but just can't describe them seems off. To put it another way, humans have general intelligence and AlphaZero doesn't. At least some of the general intelligence is used for human chess play, so there is a dimension of that which AZ doesn't have.

lern_too_spel 8y ago
In the context of playing chess, humans use general intelligence to featurize the game state in terms of piece value and position value and weight the relative importance of those. The rest is memorization and simulation, which is where the intuition of advanced players comes from — they aren't actively thinking of piece value and position rules like beginmers. I don't see a huge difference here between humans and AlphaZero in those terms.
- ikeboy 8y ago
  I think using general intelligence to do that is importantly different from simulating a huge number of games and generating weights from that
  - pashamur 8y ago
    If you look at the progress graph of AlphaZero / LeelaChess (open source clone), and look at how it plays in its weaker iterations, it actually pretty closely correlates to how a weaker human chess player would play at those levels of strength (positional blunders, simple tactical mistakes, etc). I've played chess for many years and I've played a few games against Leela (not full strength, the early versions). I never got the feeling that I was playing a computer. Additionally, one of the primary ways of improvement past the ~2000 level is review of master games. Most people who make it to GM level have reviewed upwards of 5,000 master games or more over a significant period of time. So they build up a similar system of "weights" in their mind for different positional features, very similarly to the way the NN would approach the problem. Sure, AlphaZero/Leela has not obtained generalized intelligence, but within a constrained sphere (Chess, Go, etc), it has come just about as close as is possible to that.
    - ikeboy 8y ago
      Reviewing 5k games is nowhere near the level of computation required for AlphaZero. They would likely not even be able to beat a human if running on human level hardware. I think there's a long way to go, and a future, general algorithm would be at AlphaZero while running on a laptop

by ikeboy 8y ago

lern_too_spel 8y ago

In the context of playing chess, humans use general intelligence to featurize the game state in terms of piece value and position value and weight the relative importance of those. The rest is memorization and simulation, which is where the intuition of advanced players comes from — they aren't actively thinking of piece value and position rules like beginmers. I don't see a huge difference here between humans and AlphaZero in those terms.

ikeboy 8y ago
I think using general intelligence to do that is importantly different from simulating a huge number of games and generating weights from that
- pashamur 8y ago
  If you look at the progress graph of AlphaZero / LeelaChess (open source clone), and look at how it plays in its weaker iterations, it actually pretty closely correlates to how a weaker human chess player would play at those levels of strength (positional blunders, simple tactical mistakes, etc). I've played chess for many years and I've played a few games against Leela (not full strength, the early versions). I never got the feeling that I was playing a computer. Additionally, one of the primary ways of improvement past the ~2000 level is review of master games. Most people who make it to GM level have reviewed upwards of 5,000 master games or more over a significant period of time. So they build up a similar system of "weights" in their mind for different positional features, very similarly to the way the NN would approach the problem. Sure, AlphaZero/Leela has not obtained generalized intelligence, but within a constrained sphere (Chess, Go, etc), it has come just about as close as is possible to that.
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    Reviewing 5k games is nowhere near the level of computation required for AlphaZero. They would likely not even be able to beat a human if running on human level hardware. I think there's a long way to go, and a future, general algorithm would be at AlphaZero while running on a laptop