[Computer-go] Notes from the Asilomar Conference on Beneficial AI
My favorite blogger's account of this conference that the Deep Mind team also participated in. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/06/notes-from-the-asilomar-conference-on-beneficial-ai/ Note: he's neither a Go player nor a computer programmer, which limits his AlphaGo related reporting, but I thought this might be interesting to the list nonetheless. Freeman *_* *|| Freeman Ng - www.AuthorFreeman.com <http://www.authorfreeman.com/>* *||**Neural Nudes - neural net generated fine art nudes* *||**Haiku Diem - a daily haiku feed * *||**Poetry Pro-Am - connecting our students with our poets* *** ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Go Tournament with hinteresting rules
No, it's because the bots' mc based algorithms currently don't care how much they win by. (At least I'm assuming that's what Ingo meant.) They just try to maximize their odds of winning. I've often wondered about this, though, and maybe the bot developers here can give me an answer. There's no reason why an mc-based go program couldn't also factor winning margin into its decisions, is there? I assume that at some point, what the mc analysis yields is a winning probability for each candidate move, but at that point, you could still combine that number with other factors, right? Some combination of winning probability and probable winning margin, so that, for example, a 87% chance of winning by 5 points could be rated lower than a 85% change of winning by 20. I don't know what the ideal formula would be, and you'd probably want to prevent the winning probability from ever getting too low, while also ignoring potentially large winning margins beyond a certain point, but the idea would be to generally make the bots play more like humans. Why, you might ask, when this would only compromise their strength? For two reasons: 1. To compete in tournaments like the one Ingo reported in this thread. 2. To make commercial programs more pleasing and useful for humans to play. On #2, I don't know about others, but I really hate playing against Go software because of how it starts playing "bad" moves once it's winning, and I'd also like to use its winning margins to help gauge my strength. Do any commercial Go programs work this way? If not, I'd like to request it from the commercial developers here. It could be an option that you'd only have in the commercial product, for your users to turn on if they prefer it. You could still operate in pure mc mode for bot vs. bot play. Freeman *_* *|| Freeman Ng - www.AuthorFreeman.com <http://www.authorfreeman.com/>* *||**Poetry Pro-Am - connecting our students with our poets* *||**Who Am I? - a personalizable picture book* *||**Haiku Diem - a daily haiku feed * *||**Joan - a novel of Joan of Arc* *** On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Erik van der Werf wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:58 PM, "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> > wrote: > > Playing under such conditions might be a challenge for the bots > > Why? Do you think the humans will collude? ;-) > > Erik. > > ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Poll: Scientific Breakthrough of the Year 2016
Had you chosen an item to vote for? The submit button was grayed out for me, too, until I selected an item. Freeman *_* *|| Freeman Ng - www.AuthorFreeman.com <http://www.authorfreeman.com/>* *||**Who Am I? - a personalizable picture book* *||**Haiku Diem - a daily haiku feed * *||**Joan - a novel of Joan of Arc* *** On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Michael Alford wrote: > I've tried Firefox and Safari on Mac, and Firefox and Chrome on Debian. I > have used the link and accessed the page from the main page. In all > instances the Submit is grayed out and does not function. > > > Michael > > > > > On 11/30/16 6:06 AM, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: > >> Hi, >> I just learned that the magazine "Science" is making a poll >> on "Scientific Breakthrough of the Year 2016". Voters may >> chose amongst 15 proposals. Voting closes on December 04. >> >> Currently the following 5 subjects have top votes. >> >> (1) Human embryos in a disc 17 % >> (2) Ripples in space time 15 % >> (3) AI in games (AlphaGo) 9 % >> (4) Pocket sized DNA sequencers 8 % >> (5) Custom designed proteins 7 % >> >> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/vote-your-scientific- >> breakthrough-year >> >> Feel free to participate. >> No registration needed. >> >> Ingo. >> ___ >> 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
Re: [Computer-go] Final score 4-1 - congratulations to AlphaGo team!
> > On 15.03.2016 13:10, Petr Baudis wrote: > >>AlphaGo has won the final game, tenaciously catching up after a tesuji >> mistake in the beginning >> > > No. Do not trust Redmond's positional judgement. IMO, after the initial > tesuji sequence, the position was balanced. (Kim said: White was a little > better at that moment.) For what it's worth, Hassabis called it a tesuji mistake <https://twitter.com/demishassabis/status/709635140020871168> from which AlphaGo had to "claw back". Of course, this was in real time and may or may not have reflected AlphaGo's actual analysis. Freeman *_* *|| Freeman Ng - www.AuthorFreeman.com <http://www.authorfreeman.com/>* *||**Who Am I? - a personalizable picture book* *||**Haiku Diem - a daily haiku feed * *||**Joan - a novel of Joan of Arc* *** ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
