3 ms·
Computers are so much better than humans at Go that the metric for board evaluation applies better to human games than it does to computer games. Just as I'm be
by SonOfLilit 3y ago
Computers are so much better than humans at Go that the metric for board evaluation applies better to human games than it does to computer games. Just as I'm better at evaluating code written by GPT than code written by senior developers.
Otherwise you'd see players who don't train with computers winning in tournaments against those who do.
- intuitionist 3y agoYeah, I don’t think the metric is wrong or bad, just that it’s not telling us anything special. Or maybe it’s telling us something about Go AIs (that the “insights” they have are human-comprehensible) but it’s not at all clear that this fully generalizes.
- visarga 3y agoOf course it doesn't work that easy in other fields. Basically the go board is an environment, the the AI model learns by creating its experiences in the environment. This can be applied to other kinds of environment, such as code execution, simulation, video games, human-AI chat rooms or robots. But each environment has its own complexity and searching for good strategies can take a long time. It's the same with scientific research, got to validate the theory in the world.
- SonOfLilit 3y agoIt sounds from your analysis that "better as evaluated by AI" would be true even if it wasn't really objectively better. All I'm saying is that yes, it does mean objectively better in this case.