You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Vaniver comments on [Link] AlphaGo: Mastering the ancient game of Go with Machine Learning - Less Wrong Discussion

14 Post author: ESRogs 27 January 2016 09:04PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (122)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RaelwayScot 28 January 2016 08:39:37PM *  0 points [-]

"Nonexistent problems" was meant as a hyperbole to say that they weren't solved in interesting ways and are extremely simple in this setting because the states and rewards are noise-free. I am not sure what you mean by the second question. They just apply gradient descent on the entire history of moves of the current game such that expected reward is maximized.

Comment author: Vaniver 28 January 2016 11:17:20PM 2 points [-]

It seems to me that the problem of value assignment to boards--"What's the edge for W or B if the game state looks like this?" is basically a solution to that problem, since it gives you the counterfactual information you need (how much would placing a stone here improve my edge?) to answer those questions.

I agree that it's a much simpler problem here than it is in a more complicated world, but I don't think it's trivial.