3 ms·
Future payoffs are almost always discounted, even if for no other reason than the future has a greater deal of uncertainty. I.e even if it was not explicit whic
by cjbgkagh 2y ago
Future payoffs are almost always discounted, even if for no other reason than the future has a greater deal of uncertainty. I.e even if it was not explicit which it almost always is, it would still be implicit.
Their conservative style is usually due to having a better fitness function. Humans tend to not be able to model uncertainty as accurately and this results in more aggressive play, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
- taneq 2y agoTypically yeah, but when you're trying to make it work at all it can be easy to forget to add a bit of a gradient towards "winning sooner is better". And this happens even at the top level, the example I was thinking about as I typed that was one of the AlphaGo exhibition games against Lee Sedol (the first, maybe?) where it got into a crushing position then seemingly messed around.
- cjbgkagh 2y agoThere is zero chance AlphaGo devs forgot about discounting. Usually you relax the discount to allow for optimal play, most likely the fitness function flailed a bit in the long tail.
- kqr 2y agoIndeed. Humans use "points ahead" as a proxy for "chance of win" so we tend to play lines that increase our lead more, even when they are a tiny bit riskier. Good software does not -- it aims for maximum chance of win, which usually means slower, less aggressive moves to turn uncertain situations into more well-defined ones.