4 ms·

It's been a while, but wasn't it two AlphaGo versions? One that was trained on existing games and "trained" with existing engines. One that was retrained from s

• Jensson 4y ago
  Both had a program running it with real Go rules. We don't have a program that can run with the real rules for logic and text to train a language model from scratch.
  • RHSman2 4y ago
    AlphaGo Zero It had basic rules of Go as an input.
    • Jensson 4y ago
      It also had a program giving it potential moves it could play, and explained to it when it had won the game. That isn't zero input. We don't have such programs for logic or text. So there will be no GPT zero, at least until we have already solved logic.
      • RHSman2 4y ago
        What is your point out of interest?
        • oska 4y ago
          Not the person who you posed the question to, but I believe their point may be that Go is a fully described game, a constrained 'space' even if that space is remarkably deep. Our world is not a fully described game (unless you want to take a radical philosophical position, and in which case we still don't know the rules of this game). We talk about and think about this world in language. Training a machine on human language and then after training, having that machine take language inputs and generate language outputs is not the same as training a machine to 'play' Go because the two worlds they have been trained in (1. the game of Go; 2. the real world) are fundamentally not equivalent.