4 ms·
The success in Go was very much not dumb search. Where dumb search had failed to achieve the level of even a very weak player, the neural net's "intuition" abou
by tux3 2y ago
The success in Go was very much not dumb search. Where dumb search had failed to achieve the level of even a very weak player, the neural net's "intuition" about good moves without any search was already very strong. Only the combination was superhuman, and that was anything but the dumb search that had been tried before.
Today's announcement is also not about proving Lean theorems by "dumb search". The success is about search + neural networks.
You're attacking critics for criticizing the solution that has failed, while confusing it for the solution that works to this day.
- cs702 2y agoThat's in fact precisely my point: Clever forms of "dumb search" that leverage compute, DNNs, RL, self-play, and/or formal languages are not dumb at all. I put the words "dumb search" in quotes precisely because I think critics who dismiss AI progress as such are missing the point. We're not in disagreement :-)
- tux3 2y ago>Clever forms of "dumb search" that leverage compute, DNNs, RL, self-play, and formal languages are not dumb at all Right. My point is that you're attacking a position that no real critic holds. Of course we're in agreement then! "Clever forms of dumb search are not dumb" feels a little like kicking down open doors. We were always going to agree.
- cs702 2y ago> My point is that you're attacking a position that no real critic holds I'm not so sure. I wrote my comment after seeing quite a few comments on other threads here that read like fancy versions of "this is just brute-force search over cleverly pruned trees." Search the other threads here, and you'll see what I mean.
- utopcell 2y agoI think that was the op's point.