i'm not sure i understand you there. > But humans failed to find an algorithmic solution for Go. sure we have algorithmic solutions for go, they're just not v

i'm not sure i understand you there. > But humans failed to find an algorithmic solution for Go. sure we have algorithmic solutions for go, they're just not very good. > All they could do is to throw a lot of data and get a bunch of coefficients without discovering underlying rules. that's not completely true either, the special thing about ~alphago~ alphazero* was that it learned by playing itself instead of learning from a pre-recorded catalog of human games (which is the reason for its - for humans - peculiar playstyle). now i'm not sure how you're arguing a neural network trained to play go doesn't understand the "underlying rules" of the game. to the contrary, it doesn't understand ANYTHING BUT the underlying rules. explaining why you did something isn't always easy for a human either. most times they couldn't say anything more concrete than "well it's obviously the best move according to my experience" without just making stuff up. *edit: mixed up alphago and alphazero