5 added 92 characters in body
source | link

Chess as a Struggle of the (human) Mind

But in chess is this tendency true? Magnus Carlsen once spoke about how 'traditional' computers in general lack human creativity saying:

So the algorithm doesn't exhibit choice at all. It actually engages in a random but probabilistic Monty-carlo search where the possible search paths available to it are increasingly prejudiced by previous outcomes. Did Alpha-zero choose to optimize its style of play this way or was that the choice of its programmers? Does Alpha-zero always have all possible moves available to it for consideration or are some moves prejudiced algorithmically in a way that mimics experience which can be interpreted by humans anthropomorphically?

Does Alpha-zero always have all possible moves available to it for consideration or are some moves prejudiced algorithmically in a way that mimics experience which can be interpreted by humans anthropomorphically?

Chess as a Struggle of the (alien) Mind

But in chess is this tendency true? Magnus Carlsen once spoke about how 'traditional' computers in general lack human creativity saying:

So the algorithm doesn't exhibit choice at all. It actually engages in a random but probabilistic Monty-carlo search where the possible search paths available to it are increasingly prejudiced by previous outcomes. Did Alpha-zero choose to optimize its style of play this way or was that the choice of its programmers? Does Alpha-zero always have all possible moves available to it for consideration or are some moves prejudiced algorithmically in a way that mimics experience which can be interpreted by humans anthropomorphically?

Chess as a Struggle of the (human) Mind

But in chess is this tendency true? Magnus Carlsen once spoke about how 'traditional' computers in general lack human creativity saying:

So the algorithm doesn't exhibit choice at all. It actually engages in a random but probabilistic Monty-carlo search where the possible search paths available to it are increasingly prejudiced by previous outcomes. Did Alpha-zero choose to optimize its style of play this way or was that the choice of its programmers?

Does Alpha-zero always have all possible moves available to it for consideration or are some moves prejudiced algorithmically in a way that mimics experience which can be interpreted by humans anthropomorphically?

Chess as a Struggle of the (alien) Mind

4 added 4 characters in body
source | link

It is as easy to jump on a bandwagon saying Alpha-Zero's play is 'more' human than previous computer chess programs as it is to jump on the opposite wagon and say Alpha-Zero's play is entirely 'alien'. It's not clear that Alpha-zero's play is 'more human' especially given our human tendency towards anthropomorphism.

But in chess is this tendency true? Magnus Carlsen once spoke about how 'traditional' computers in general lack human creativity saying:

"Chess is all about the struggle between human minds. That’s what makes it exciting. Computer chess is mechanical, dry and bland. The moves are very strong, of course, but there is no style. If you try to play against a chess computer, not only will you lose with a very high certainty, but you will also be bored in the process.

Magnus Carlsen didn't see evidence of human styles of play in traditional chess computers. So lets examine if Alpha-Zero's recent accomplishment has undone this perspective and moved us towards something more reminiscent of ourselves.

If by 'human-like' you mean play 'exhibiting behavior more likely to appeal to our sense of anthropomorphism' does Alpha-zero's style seem more human? How do we really test this subjective myopic humans like to project upon non-human things? Lets ask - does the algorithm 'selectively pick better' or exhibit 'more human creative choice' in its style of play?

The algorithm's creators indicate that unlike Stockfish which uses an Alpha-Beta search algorithm, Alpha-Zero employs a Monte-Carlo tree search (MCTS) algorithm which accepts as input a weighted parameters θ built up from previous outcomes ~ Page 3. Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm).

So the algorithm doesn't exhibit choice at all. It actually engages in a random but probabilistic Monty-carlo search where the possible search paths available to it are increasingly prejudiced by previous outcomes. Did Alpha-zero choose to optimize its style of play this way or was that the choice of its programmers? Does Alpha-zero always have all possible moves available to it for consideration or are some moves prejudiced algorithmically in a way that mimics experience which can be interpreted by humans anthropomorphically?

Initially it had all moves available to it so its 'style' was entirely random. However as it's search is increasingly and optimally constrained by previous success or failure its style is actually changing towards the mode its programmers have shackled it with. Is this 'more human' though? Compare this to Magnus Carlesen who will sometimes choose less optimal moves because they are more creative:

Magnus Carlsen: “I appreciate creating something unique”

Humans can chose the criteria that drives their own style of play (for example I often chose impulse and error in my own style). Many see Alpha-zero's play in both chess and go as decidedly Alien. Nick Hynes, a grad student at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) observes:

“What we’re seeing here is a model free from human bias and presuppositions: It can learn whatever it determines is optimal, which may indeed be more nuanced that our own conceptions of the same. It’s like an alien civilization inventing its own mathematics which allows it to do things like time travel...”

Likewise GM Peter Heine Nielsen told Chess.com:

"After reading the paper but especially seeing the games I thought, well, I always wondered how it would be if a superior species landed on earth and showed us how they play chess. I feel now I know."

It seems that most react to Alpha-zero's emergent style of play as 'alien play', and not as 'more human'.

Therefore there's reason to disagree with the answers above that say 'yes'.

It is as easy to jump on a bandwagon saying Alpha-Zero's play is 'more' human than previous computer chess programs as it is to jump on the opposite wagon and say Alpha-Zero's play is entirely 'alien'. It's not clear that Alpha-zero's play is 'more human' especially given our human tendency towards anthropomorphism.

But in chess is this tendency true? Magnus Carlsen once spoke about how 'traditional' computers in general lack human creativity saying:

"Chess is all about the struggle between human minds. That’s what makes it exciting. Computer chess is mechanical, dry and bland. The moves are very strong, of course, but there is no style. If you try to play against a chess computer, not only will you lose with a very high certainty, but you will also be bored in the process.

Magnus Carlsen didn't see evidence of human styles of play in traditional chess computers. So lets examine if Alpha-Zero's recent accomplishment has undone this perspective and moved us towards something more reminiscent of ourselves.

If by 'human-like' you mean play 'exhibiting behavior more likely to appeal to our sense of anthropomorphism' does Alpha-zero's style seem more human? How do we really test this subjective myopic humans like to project upon non-human things? Lets ask - does the algorithm 'selectively pick better' or exhibit 'more human creative choice' in its style of play?

The algorithm's creators indicate that unlike Stockfish which uses an Alpha-Beta search algorithm, Alpha-Zero employs a Monte-Carlo tree search (MCTS) algorithm which accepts as input a weighted parameters θ built up from previous outcomes ~ Page 3. Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm).

So the algorithm doesn't exhibit choice at all. It actually engages in a random but probabilistic Monty-carlo search where the possible search paths available to it are increasingly prejudiced by previous outcomes. Did Alpha-zero choose to optimize its style of play this way or was that the choice of its programmers? Does Alpha-zero always have all possible moves available to it for consideration or are some moves prejudiced algorithmically in a way that mimics experience which can be interpreted by humans anthropomorphically?

Initially it had all moves available to it so its 'style' was entirely random. However as it's search is increasingly and optimally constrained by previous success or failure its style is actually changing towards the mode its programmers have shackled it with. Is this 'more human' though? Compare this to Magnus Carlesen will sometimes choose less optimal moves because they are more creative:

Magnus Carlsen: “I appreciate creating something unique”

Humans can chose the criteria that drives their own style of play (for example I often chose impulse and error in my own style). Many see Alpha-zero's play in both chess and go as decidedly Alien. Nick Hynes, a grad student at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) observes:

“What we’re seeing here is a model free from human bias and presuppositions: It can learn whatever it determines is optimal, which may indeed be more nuanced that our own conceptions of the same. It’s like an alien civilization inventing its own mathematics which allows it to do things like time travel...”

Likewise GM Peter Heine Nielsen told Chess.com:

"After reading the paper but especially seeing the games I thought, well, I always wondered how it would be if a superior species landed on earth and showed us how they play chess. I feel now I know."

It seems that most react to Alpha-zero's emergent style of play as 'alien play', and not as 'more human'.

Therefore there's reason to disagree with the answers above that say 'yes'.

It is as easy to jump on a bandwagon saying Alpha-Zero's play is 'more' human than previous computer chess programs as it is to jump on the opposite wagon and say Alpha-Zero's play is entirely 'alien'. It's not clear that Alpha-zero's play is 'more human' especially given our human tendency towards anthropomorphism.

But in chess is this tendency true? Magnus Carlsen once spoke about how 'traditional' computers in general lack human creativity saying:

"Chess is all about the struggle between human minds. That’s what makes it exciting. Computer chess is mechanical, dry and bland. The moves are very strong, of course, but there is no style. If you try to play against a chess computer, not only will you lose with a very high certainty, but you will also be bored in the process.

Magnus Carlsen didn't see evidence of human styles of play in traditional chess computers. So lets examine if Alpha-Zero's recent accomplishment has undone this perspective and moved us towards something more reminiscent of ourselves.

If by 'human-like' you mean play 'exhibiting behavior more likely to appeal to our sense of anthropomorphism' does Alpha-zero's style seem more human? How do we really test this subjective myopic humans like to project upon non-human things? Lets ask - does the algorithm 'selectively pick better' or exhibit 'more human creative choice' in its style of play?

The algorithm's creators indicate that unlike Stockfish which uses an Alpha-Beta search algorithm, Alpha-Zero employs a Monte-Carlo tree search (MCTS) algorithm which accepts as input a weighted parameters θ built up from previous outcomes ~ Page 3. Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm).

So the algorithm doesn't exhibit choice at all. It actually engages in a random but probabilistic Monty-carlo search where the possible search paths available to it are increasingly prejudiced by previous outcomes. Did Alpha-zero choose to optimize its style of play this way or was that the choice of its programmers? Does Alpha-zero always have all possible moves available to it for consideration or are some moves prejudiced algorithmically in a way that mimics experience which can be interpreted by humans anthropomorphically?

Initially it had all moves available to it so its 'style' was entirely random. However as it's search is increasingly and optimally constrained by previous success or failure its style is actually changing towards the mode its programmers have shackled it with. Is this 'more human' though? Compare this to Magnus Carlesen who will sometimes choose less optimal moves because they are more creative:

Magnus Carlsen: “I appreciate creating something unique”

Humans can chose the criteria that drives their own style of play (for example I often chose impulse and error in my own style). Many see Alpha-zero's play in both chess and go as decidedly Alien. Nick Hynes, a grad student at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) observes:

“What we’re seeing here is a model free from human bias and presuppositions: It can learn whatever it determines is optimal, which may indeed be more nuanced that our own conceptions of the same. It’s like an alien civilization inventing its own mathematics which allows it to do things like time travel...”

Likewise GM Peter Heine Nielsen told Chess.com:

"After reading the paper but especially seeing the games I thought, well, I always wondered how it would be if a superior species landed on earth and showed us how they play chess. I feel now I know."

It seems that most react to Alpha-zero's emergent style of play as 'alien play', and not as 'more human'.

Therefore there's reason to disagree with the answers above that say 'yes'.

3 added 21 characters in body
source | link

It is as easy to jump on a bandwagon saying Alpha-Zero's play is 'more' human than previous computer chess programs as it is to jump on the opposite wagon and say Alpha-Zero's play is entirely 'alien'. It's not clear that Alpha-zero's play is 'more human' especially given our human tendency towards anthropomorphism.

But in chess is this tendency true? Magnus Carlsen once spoke about how 'traditional' computers in general lack human creativity saying:

"Chess is all about the struggle between human minds. That’s what makes it exciting. Computer chess is mechanical, dry and bland. The moves are very strong, of course, but there is no style. If you try to play against a chess computer, not only will you lose with a very high certainty, but you will also be bored in the process.

Magnus Carlsen didn't see evidence of human styles of play in traditional chess computers. So lets examine if Alpha-Zero's recent accomplishment has undone this perspective and moved us towards something more reminiscent of ourselves.

If by 'human-like' you mean play 'exhibiting behavior more likely to appeal to our sense of anthropomorphism' does Alpha-zero's style seem more human? How do we really test this subjective myopic humans like to project upon non-human things? Lets ask - does the algorithm 'selectively pick better' or exhibit 'more human creative choice' in its style of play?

The algorithm's creators indicate that unlike Stockfish which uses an Alpha-Beta search algorithm, Alpha-Zero employs a Monte-Carlo tree search (MCTS) algorithm which accepts as input a weighted parameters θ built up from previous outcomes ~ Page 3. Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm).

So the algorithm doesn't exhibit choice at all. It actually engages in a random but probabilistic Monty-carlo search where the possible search paths available to it are increasingly prejudiced by previous outcomes. Did Alpha-zero choose to optimize its style of play this way or was that the choice of its programmers? Does Alpha-zero always have all possible moves available to it for consideration or are some moves prejudiced algorithmically in a way that mimics experience which can be interpreted by humans anthropomorphically?

Initially it had all moves available to it so its 'style' was entirely random. However as it's search is increasingly and optimally constrained by previous success or failure its style is actually changing towards the mode its programmers have shackled it with. Is this 'more human' though? Compare this to Magnus Carlesen will sometimes choose less optimal moves because they are more creative:

Magnus Carlsen: “I appreciate creating something unique”

ManyHumans can chose the criteria that drives their own style of play (for example I often chose impulse and error in my own style). Many see itsAlpha-zero's play in both chess and go as decidedly Alien. Nick Hynes, a grad student at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) observes:

“What we’re seeing here is a model free from human bias and presuppositions: It can learn whatever it determines is optimal, which may indeed be more nuanced that our own conceptions of the same. It’s like an alien civilization inventing its own mathematics which allows it to do things like time travel...”

Likewise GM Peter Heine Nielsen told Chess.com:

"After reading the paper but especially seeing the games I thought, well, I always wondered how it would be if a superior species landed on earth and showed us how they play chess. I feel now I know."

It seems that most react to Alpha-zero's emergent style of play as 'alien play', and not as 'more human'.

Therefore there's reason to disagree with the answers above that say 'yes'.

It is as easy to jump on a bandwagon saying Alpha-Zero's play is 'more' human than previous computer chess programs as it is to jump on the opposite wagon and say Alpha-Zero's play is entirely 'alien'. It's not clear that Alpha-zero's play is 'more human' especially given our human tendency towards anthropomorphism.

But in chess is this tendency true? Magnus Carlsen once spoke about how 'traditional' computers in general lack human creativity saying:

"Chess is all about the struggle between human minds. That’s what makes it exciting. Computer chess is mechanical, dry and bland. The moves are very strong, of course, but there is no style. If you try to play against a chess computer, not only will you lose with a very high certainty, but you will also be bored in the process.

Magnus Carlsen didn't see evidence of human styles of play in traditional chess computers. So lets examine if Alpha-Zero's recent accomplishment has undone this perspective and moved us towards something more reminiscent of ourselves.

If by 'human-like' you mean play 'exhibiting behavior more likely to appeal to our sense of anthropomorphism' does Alpha-zero's style seem more human? How do we really test this subjective myopic humans like to project upon non-human things? Lets ask - does the algorithm 'selectively pick better' or exhibit 'more human creative choice' in its style of play?

The algorithm's creators indicate that unlike Stockfish which uses an Alpha-Beta search algorithm, Alpha-Zero employs a Monte-Carlo tree search (MCTS) algorithm which accepts as input a weighted parameters θ built up from previous outcomes ~ Page 3. Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm).

So the algorithm doesn't exhibit choice at all. It actually engages in a random but probabilistic Monty-carlo search where the possible search paths available to it are increasingly prejudiced by previous outcomes. Did Alpha-zero choose to optimize its style of play this way or was that the choice of its programmers? Does Alpha-zero always have all possible moves available to it for consideration or are some moves prejudiced algorithmically in a way that mimics experience which can be interpreted by humans anthropomorphically?

Initially it had all moves available to it so its 'style' was entirely random. However as it's search is increasingly and optimally constrained by previous success or failure its style is actually changing towards the mode its programmers have shackled it with. Is this 'more human' though?

Many see its play in both chess and go as decidedly Alien. Nick Hynes, a grad student at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) observes:

“What we’re seeing here is a model free from human bias and presuppositions: It can learn whatever it determines is optimal, which may indeed be more nuanced that our own conceptions of the same. It’s like an alien civilization inventing its own mathematics which allows it to do things like time travel...”

Likewise GM Peter Heine Nielsen told Chess.com:

"After reading the paper but especially seeing the games I thought, well, I always wondered how it would be if a superior species landed on earth and showed us how they play chess. I feel now I know."

It seems that most react to Alpha-zero's emergent style of play as 'alien play', and not as 'more human'.

Therefore there's reason to disagree with the answers above that say 'yes'.

It is as easy to jump on a bandwagon saying Alpha-Zero's play is 'more' human than previous computer chess programs as it is to jump on the opposite wagon and say Alpha-Zero's play is entirely 'alien'. It's not clear that Alpha-zero's play is 'more human' especially given our human tendency towards anthropomorphism.

But in chess is this tendency true? Magnus Carlsen once spoke about how 'traditional' computers in general lack human creativity saying:

"Chess is all about the struggle between human minds. That’s what makes it exciting. Computer chess is mechanical, dry and bland. The moves are very strong, of course, but there is no style. If you try to play against a chess computer, not only will you lose with a very high certainty, but you will also be bored in the process.

Magnus Carlsen didn't see evidence of human styles of play in traditional chess computers. So lets examine if Alpha-Zero's recent accomplishment has undone this perspective and moved us towards something more reminiscent of ourselves.

If by 'human-like' you mean play 'exhibiting behavior more likely to appeal to our sense of anthropomorphism' does Alpha-zero's style seem more human? How do we really test this subjective myopic humans like to project upon non-human things? Lets ask - does the algorithm 'selectively pick better' or exhibit 'more human creative choice' in its style of play?

The algorithm's creators indicate that unlike Stockfish which uses an Alpha-Beta search algorithm, Alpha-Zero employs a Monte-Carlo tree search (MCTS) algorithm which accepts as input a weighted parameters θ built up from previous outcomes ~ Page 3. Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm).

So the algorithm doesn't exhibit choice at all. It actually engages in a random but probabilistic Monty-carlo search where the possible search paths available to it are increasingly prejudiced by previous outcomes. Did Alpha-zero choose to optimize its style of play this way or was that the choice of its programmers? Does Alpha-zero always have all possible moves available to it for consideration or are some moves prejudiced algorithmically in a way that mimics experience which can be interpreted by humans anthropomorphically?

Initially it had all moves available to it so its 'style' was entirely random. However as it's search is increasingly and optimally constrained by previous success or failure its style is actually changing towards the mode its programmers have shackled it with. Is this 'more human' though? Compare this to Magnus Carlesen will sometimes choose less optimal moves because they are more creative:

Magnus Carlsen: “I appreciate creating something unique”

Humans can chose the criteria that drives their own style of play (for example I often chose impulse and error in my own style). Many see Alpha-zero's play in both chess and go as decidedly Alien. Nick Hynes, a grad student at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) observes:

“What we’re seeing here is a model free from human bias and presuppositions: It can learn whatever it determines is optimal, which may indeed be more nuanced that our own conceptions of the same. It’s like an alien civilization inventing its own mathematics which allows it to do things like time travel...”

Likewise GM Peter Heine Nielsen told Chess.com:

"After reading the paper but especially seeing the games I thought, well, I always wondered how it would be if a superior species landed on earth and showed us how they play chess. I feel now I know."

It seems that most react to Alpha-zero's emergent style of play as 'alien play', and not as 'more human'.

Therefore there's reason to disagree with the answers above that say 'yes'.

2 added 21 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link