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.

James_Miller comments on AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol - Less Wrong Discussion

17 Post author: gjm 09 March 2016 12:22PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (183)
Tags: alphago deepmind go ai

Comments (183)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: James_Miller 10 March 2016 05:58:10PM 6 points [-]

For me the most interesting part of this match was the part where one of the DeepMind team confirmed that because AlphaGo optimizes for probability of winning rather than expected score difference, games where it has the advantage will look close. It changes how you should interpret the apparent closeness of a game

Qiaochu Yuan, or him quoting someone.

Comment author: TheAltar 10 March 2016 09:52:09PM 3 points [-]

I was worried about something like this after the first game. I wasn't sure if expert Go players could discern the difference between AlphaGo playing slightly better than a 9dan versus playing massively better than a 9dan due to how the AI was set up and how difficult it might be to look at players better than the ones already at the top.

Comment author: dxu 11 March 2016 05:49:40PM 1 point [-]

This appears to be a general property of the Monte Carlo search algorithm, which AlphaGo employs.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 11 March 2016 04:18:34AM 1 point [-]

Almost all algorithms for almost all games play to win. That isn't anything special about AlphaGo. Maybe there's something special about Go or about this algorithm that makes is harder to assess, but that isn't a reason.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit