4 ms·
I skimmed the article so sorry in advance if I missed it, but to me one fairly trivial way to gauge whether AlphaZero has human-like conceptual understanding of
by Barrin92 4y ago
I skimmed the article so sorry in advance if I missed it, but to me one fairly trivial way to gauge whether AlphaZero has human-like conceptual understanding of chess would be to throw a few games of Fischer random at it.
I remember with Deepminds breakout AI one very easy way to see the difference to human play was to change the shape of the paddle. Even very slight changes completely threw the AI off, so it was obvious it hadn't understood the 'breakout ontology' in a human way.
I'd expect the same from chess. Humans who understand chess at a high level well obviously play worse in non-standard variants but the familiar concepts are still in play. If an AI has a human-like grasp of high level concepts it ought to be pretty robust to some changes to the game rules like changing the dimensionality of the board.
- FartyMcFarter 4y agoRegarding the breakout AI, I think you could somewhat easily train an AI that was robust to such changes, for example by randomizing the paddle shape in training. But if you train an AI on a more specific version I wouldn't expect it to magically learn the more general problem. In fact I'd argue it's unfair to expect an AI to automatically generalize without attempting to train it for that. The only reason humans can quickly learn many games is that they've been exposed to a variety of tasks throughout their lives, as well as the fact that we have innate biases that we might use when designing games by humans for humans.