Come on let's all calm down please. :) David I think the great challenge is in having good insight with AlphaGo strength. Many Faces already provides some textual move suggestions, as do probably other programs. Any program that doesn't use exclusively machine learning or global search, like GNU Go, should be able to suggest how it came about a move.
Unfortunately no one has a clue on how to put into words what DCNN "know", to produce really meaningful and useful feedback, justifying decisions around candidates, etc. This is very much worth investigating. - Gonçalo On 30/03/2016 12:32, Álvaro Begué wrote: >> no lack of respect for DeepMind's achievement was contained in my >> posting; on the contrary, i was as surprised as anyone at how well she >> did and it gave me great pause for thought. >> > > Well, you wrote this: > >> but convolutional neural networks and monte-carlo simulators have not >> advanced the science of artificial intelligence one whit further than >> being engineered empirical validations of the 1940s-era theories of >> McCullough & Pitts and Ulam respectively, albeit their conjunction >> being a seminal validation insofar as duffing up human Go players is >> concerned. >> > > That paragraph is disrespectful of AlphaGo and every important development > that it was built on. Theorists of the 40s didn't know jackshit about how > to make a strong go program or any other part of AI, for that matter. > > This is like giving credit to the pre-Socratic philosophers for atomic > theory, or to Genesis for the Big Bang theory. I am sure there are people > that see connections, but no. Just no. > > one has to expect a certain amount of abuse when going public, and to >> expect that eager critics will misrepresent what was said. >> > > Your vast experience in the field means your opinions were formed way > before we knew what works and what doesn't, and are essentially worthless. > > There, you like abuse? > > Álvaro. > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:04 AM, djhbrown . <djhbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> one has to expect a certain amount of abuse when going public, and to >> expect that eager critics will misrepresent what was said. >> >> no lack of respect for DeepMind's achievement was contained in my >> posting; on the contrary, i was as surprised as anyone at how well she >> did and it gave me great pause for thought. >> >> as to preconceived notions, my own notions are postconceived, having >> studied artificial intelligence and biological computation over 40 >> post-doctoral years during which i have published 50 or so >> peer-reviewed scientific papers, some in respectable journals, >> including New Scientist. >> >> On 30/03/2016, Stefan Kaitschick <skaitsch...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Your lack of respect for task performance is misguided imo. Your >>> preconceived notions of what intelligence is, will lead you astray. >>> >> >> >> -- >> patient: "whenever i open my mouth, i get a shooting pain in my foot" >> doctor: "fire!" >> http://sites.google.com/site/djhbrown2/home >> https://www.youtube.com/user/djhbrown >> _______________________________________________ >> Computer-go mailing list >> Computer-go@computer-go.org >> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
