4 ms·
I think there's something interesting in your post. However: > The point is that the resulting Go AI was still very good, even under the conditions it was limi
by hyperpape 4y ago
I think there's something interesting in your post. However:
> The point is that the resulting Go AI was still very good, even under the conditions it was limited to. I'm sure it could still beat a fair number of human players.
If you mean the AI that they trained (the one that defeats KataGo) this is wrong. Look at the games: they're terrible: https://goattack.alignmentfund.org/ https://goattack.alignmentfund.org/.
- jerf 4y agoNo, I meant that KataGo is still very good. My apologies for the lack of clarity, I see how you could have read it that way. I do understand the adversarial AI is not good; that is in fact part of the "offness" I mean. Any AI that defeats something "truly" good should itself have to be "good", and yes, I know that's got enough mathematical fuzziness to drive a truck through, but I know we don't have the English vocabulary to make that statement rigorous and I am reasonably confident we don't even have the mathematical vocabulary to do it.
- hyperpape 4y agoThanks! In that case, the thing you say about KataGo can be strengthened: > I'm sure it could still beat a fair number of human players. KataGo can reliably beat any human player while giving them a handicap. The best pros lose a majority of games to a handful of top AI while receiving a 2 stone handicap, and are not locks to win with 3 stones. Note: they did test two variants of KataGo, with and without search (search is very beneficial). Both versions are quite strong, and they had good results against both but they had their best results against the non-search version.