maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:29 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: "Trigger Warning" thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:49 pm 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 18021
Reputation points: 15136
jack t ripper wrote:
GENTLEMEN! GENTLEMEN! NO TRIGGERING IN THE TRIGGER WARNING THREAD!


:lol:

;)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Trigger Warning" thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:59 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9806
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 11378
1) The mere mentioning of Noam Chomsky's name causes me to verge toward a high blood pressure event. Unless you are praying for the senile old fuck's sooner demise, please refrain from mentioning him. Once he is dead, we can be sure he will stop serving as a scion of all that is insanely Marxist and SJW and review his earlier carer accomplishments in linguistics for what they were and perhaps appreciate his contributions in a relative manner.

2) The term "Artificial Intelligence" is stupid. Please refrain from using it. It sounds like saying "Artificial Pride" or "Artificial Avarice." Yes, the things computers can do are amazing, astounding even, but lets refrain from confuting stupid fucking machines with animals, eh?

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Trigger Warning" thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:11 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 24402
Reputation points: 17675
Oh, yeah, Chomsky...definitely trigger warning required.

I'd rather listen to Salman Rushdie recite passages from Satanic Verses with Neil Sedaka as background music.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Trigger Warning" thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:12 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 13467
Reputation points: 2181
Anthropoid wrote:
...
2) The term "Artificial Intelligence" is stupid. Please refrain from using it. It sounds like saying "Artificial Pride" or "Artificial Avarice." Yes, the things computers can do are amazing, astounding even, but lets refrain from confuting stupid fucking machines with animals, eh?

Then tell me how to call AlphaGo winning the best human player? Perhaps "machine learning"?

But when neural networks get whiff self-awareness it is completely another ballgame.

I am sure. :roll:

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Trigger Warning" thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:19 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9806
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 11378
nero wrote:
Anthropoid wrote:
...
2) The term "Artificial Intelligence" is stupid. Please refrain from using it. It sounds like saying "Artificial Pride" or "Artificial Avarice." Yes, the things computers can do are amazing, astounding even, but lets refrain from confuting stupid fucking machines with animals, eh?

Then tell me how to call AlphaGo winning the best human player? Perhaps "machine learning"?

But when neural networks get whiff self-awareness it is completely another ballgame.

I am sure. :roll:


AlphaGo == "Well-tuned sequential decision algorithm," and a HIGHLY context specific and otherwise useless one at that. Nothing more. Its like considering a thermostat "intelligent" because it "knows" to come on when it needs to and go off when it needs to.

I reckon an average 18 year old, who had never played the game could give AlphaGo a run for his money, probably not beat him in a short number of repeated trials, but quickly improve after a game or two. A few people might even have an untapped potential for the game and perform astoundingly well after one or two losses <-- THAT is intelligence.

Now lets have AlphaGo play the humans in a game of Chess or checkers; we can even make it completely naive humans with virtually no experience with those games. Unless AlphaGo is either tweaked by his programmers to handle the decision structures of those games (or on the off chance that he already has those written in to him, which I doubt), he is going to fail utterly. Might not even be able to make a single move without having some of his programming rewritten to allow him to even react to the altered situation of a different board game. <- THAT is NOT intelligence. It is a machine that is tuned to analyze a very specific branching decision tree and choose optimum at any given point in it. It is an astounding feat of programming and analysis on the part of the progammers who made him, and they are to be saluted. But they made an application, not an artificial intelligence.

For more general terms? "Computer Opponent," "Computer Adversary," "Algorithmic Opponent," whatever . . .

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Trigger Warning" thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:33 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 13467
Reputation points: 2181
Anthropoid wrote:
nero wrote:
...
Then tell me how to call AlphaGo winning the best human player? Perhaps "machine learning"?

But when neural networks get whiff self-awareness it is completely another ballgame.

I am sure. :roll:


AlphaGo == "Well-tuned sequential decision algorithm," and a HIGHLY context specific and otherwise useless one at that. Nothing more. Its like considering a thermostat "intelligent" because it "knows" to come on when it needs to and go off when it needs to.

I reckon an average 18 year old, who had never played the game could give AlphaGo a run for his money, probably not beat him in a short number of repeated trials, but quickly improve after a game or two. A few people might even have an untapped potential for the game and perform astoundingly well after one or two losses <-- THAT is intelligence.

Now lets have AlphaGo play the humans in a game of Chess or checkers; we can even make it completely naive humans with virtually no experience with those games. Unless AlphaGo is either tweaked by his programmers to handle the decision structures of those games (or on the off chance that he already has those written in to him, which I doubt), he is going to fail utterly. Might not even be able to make a single move without having some of his programming rewritten to allow him to even react to the altered situation of a different board game. <- THAT is NOT intelligence. It is a machine that is tuned to analyze a very specific branching decision tree and choose optimum at any given point in it. It is an astounding feat of programming and analysis on the part of the progammers who made him, and they are to be saluted. But they made an application, not an artificial intelligence.

For more general terms? "Computer Opponent," "Computer Adversary," "Algorithmic Opponent," whatever . . .

The point is that AlphaGo was not programmed to play, but programmed to learn to play. Very different from DeepBlue that won Garry Kasparov.

But when program, programmed to learn, wants to learn more? And the quantum computing is coming, just around the corner. I don't know. :roll:

I have been skeptical all the time, the AI of the 80's was just a joke.

We are living in interesting times with neural networks, machine learning and quantum computing.

I must refer to my sig line(1).

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Trigger Warning" thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:50 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9806
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 11378
nero wrote:
Anthropoid wrote:

AlphaGo == "Well-tuned sequential decision algorithm," and a HIGHLY context specific and otherwise useless one at that. Nothing more. Its like considering a thermostat "intelligent" because it "knows" to come on when it needs to and go off when it needs to.

I reckon an average 18 year old, who had never played the game could give AlphaGo a run for his money, probably not beat him in a short number of repeated trials, but quickly improve after a game or two. A few people might even have an untapped potential for the game and perform astoundingly well after one or two losses <-- THAT is intelligence.

Now lets have AlphaGo play the humans in a game of Chess or checkers; we can even make it completely naive humans with virtually no experience with those games. Unless AlphaGo is either tweaked by his programmers to handle the decision structures of those games (or on the off chance that he already has those written in to him, which I doubt), he is going to fail utterly. Might not even be able to make a single move without having some of his programming rewritten to allow him to even react to the altered situation of a different board game. <- THAT is NOT intelligence. It is a machine that is tuned to analyze a very specific branching decision tree and choose optimum at any given point in it. It is an astounding feat of programming and analysis on the part of the progammers who made him, and they are to be saluted. But they made an application, not an artificial intelligence.

For more general terms? "Computer Opponent," "Computer Adversary," "Algorithmic Opponent," whatever . . .


The point is that AlphaGo was not programmed to play, but programmed to learn to play. Very different from DeepBlue that won Garry Kasparov.


That isn't exactly what I'm reading: sounds like it was heavily programmed specifically for Go, then it was unveiled and managed to do quite well against humans.

If it was "programmed to learn" then it wouldn't need a data base of "30 million moves" it could simply play the game with human opponents online and learn by doing, the way actual intelligent critters learn.

Quote:
But when program, programmed to learn, wants to learn more? And the quantum computing is coming, just around the corner. I don't know. :roll:

I have been skeptical all the time, the AI of the 80's was just a joke.

We are living in interesting times with neural networks, machine learning and quantum computing.


If AlphaGo was programmed to "learn" then it should be able to tackle any other game? I doubt that very seriously.

The issue I take is with the hype and imprecision in the terms. Call it what it is, don't confute it with an animal, that is not helpful and there are only a couple of real reasons for doing that: (1) avarice; (2) pride; (3) stupidity; (4) laziness. Based on my limited exposure to computer science, the general level of intellect and industriousness is astounding. Computer science as a broad array of fields strikes me as being one of the most intelligent disciplines in existence. Which is why the widespread--indeed virtually universal--malapropism of "artificial intelligence" is so cringey. It isn't actually universal. The developers of The Operational Art of War explained to me long ago on one of their forum's threads that, their game "had no AI," and they simply referred to it as "computer opponent" . . . though in truth I'm not certain if that was a general disavowal of the entire concept or simply how they had their game programmed.

Making an application that can beat a professional human at a board game, even just ONE board game, much less two or more is an amazing accomplishment. Making an application that can give a human player a fun/challenging/rewarding experience in any game is also quite an accomplisment. Making a decision-algorithm which is useful to humans in the myriad ways such things can be useful or edifying is noteworthy.

I'm not dissing the art/science of programming, or so-called "AI Programming." I respect and admire the work and accomplishments.

I'm just saying it is sloppy, imprecise, vague, and inaccurate to refer to these things as "Artificial Intelligence." They are artificial but they are NOT intelligent. Until people who resort to the term routinely stop and consider why someone like me would make such a point and learn about what "intelligence" actually is, they are in no position to actually accomplish that which their malapropism leads them to believe they are on the cusp of accomplishing: creating artificial intelligence.

I believe there have been some recent attempts to create applications which actually engage in the sequences which mimic animal learning, TAY for example. We see how that turned out.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Trigger Warning" thread
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:39 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 13467
Reputation points: 2181
Anthropoid wrote:
nero wrote:
...
The point is that AlphaGo was not programmed to play, but programmed to learn to play. Very different from DeepBlue that won Garry Kasparov.


That isn't exactly what I'm reading: sounds like it was heavily programmed specifically for Go, then it was unveiled and managed to do quite well against humans.

If it was "programmed to learn" then it wouldn't need a data base of "30 million moves" it could simply play the game with human opponents online and learn by doing, the way actual intelligent critters learn.

Quote:
But when program, programmed to learn, wants to learn more? And the quantum computing is coming, just around the corner. I don't know. :roll:

I have been skeptical all the time, the AI of the 80's was just a joke.

We are living in interesting times with neural networks, machine learning and quantum computing.


If AlphaGo was programmed to "learn" then it should be able to tackle any other game? I doubt that very seriously.

The issue I take is with the hype and imprecision in the terms. Call it what it is, don't confute it with an animal, that is not helpful and there are only a couple of real reasons for doing that: (1) avarice; (2) pride; (3) stupidity; (4) laziness. Based on my limited exposure to computer science, the general level of intellect and industriousness is astounding. Computer science as a broad array of fields strikes me as being one of the most intelligent disciplines in existence. Which is why the widespread--indeed virtually universal--malapropism of "artificial intelligence" is so cringey. It isn't actually universal. The developers of The Operational Art of War explained to me long ago on one of their forum's threads that, their game "had no AI," and they simply referred to it as "computer opponent" . . . though in truth I'm not certain if that was a general disavowal of the entire concept or simply how they had their game programmed.

Making an application that can beat a professional human at a board game, even just ONE board game, much less two or more is an amazing accomplishment. Making an application that can give a human player a fun/challenging/rewarding experience in any game is also quite an accomplisment. Making a decision-algorithm which is useful to humans in the myriad ways such things can be useful or edifying is noteworthy.

I'm not dissing the art/science of programming, or so-called "AI Programming." I respect and admire the work and accomplishments.

I'm just saying it is sloppy, imprecise, vague, and inaccurate to refer to these things as "Artificial Intelligence." They are artificial but they are NOT intelligent. Until people who resort to the term routinely stop and consider why someone like me would make such a point and learn about what "intelligence" actually is, they are in no position to actually accomplish that which their malapropism leads them to believe they are on the cusp of accomplishing: creating artificial intelligence.

I believe there have been some recent attempts to create applications which actually engage in the sequences which mimic animal learning, TAY for example. We see how that turned out.

FYI.

Anthropoid wrote:
If it was "programmed to learn" then it wouldn't need a data base of "30 million moves" it could simply play the game with human opponents online and learn by doing, the way actual intelligent critters learn.


There is no data base in Alpha Zero, only the neural network. ;)

André Schulz wrote:

Image

Alpha Zero: Comparing "Orangutans and Apples"

From Zero to Chess

The company DeepMind Technologies was founded in London 2010 by Demis Hassabis, Shane Legg and Mustafa Suleyman. In January 2014, Google bought the start-up company for an undisclosed amount, estimated to be about USD $500 million. The company became Google DeepMind, and has the vision to "understand artificial intelligence". Here, it wants to adapt the capacity of the human brain to the approaches of "Machine Learning".

Machine learning

In October 2015, DeepMind had a first big success with the game of Go. Go is a very complex game and requires strategic skills in particular. For a long time it had been impossible to translate the requirements of Go into mathematical formulas that would allow Go programs to compete with the best human Go players. But with special self-learning heuristics the DeepMind program AlphaGo got better and better and was finally strong enough to beat Go professionals. In October 2015, AlphaGo defeated several-time European Champion Fan Hui, in March 2016 the program won 4 : 1 against the South Korean Go professional Lee Sedol, a 9-Dan player — both matches were played under tournament conditions.

The architecture of the AlphaGo program is based on an interaction of two neural networks, a "policy network" to define candidate moves, and a "value network" to evaluate positions. A Monte Carlo approach connects the two networks to a search tree. With the help of a database with 30 million moves the program learnt to predict the moves of humans.

Image

In the match against Fan Hui, AlphaGo ran on a computer cluster of 1202 CPUs and 178 GPUs and used 40 "search threads". In the following match against Lee Sedol it had 1920 CPUs and 280 GPUs. For the learning phase before the matches the Google Cloud platform with its Tensor Processing Units (TPUs, ASICs for the software collection TensorFlow) was used.

In May 2017 AlphaGo took part in the "Wuzhen Future of Go Summit 2017" in Wuzhen, China, and won three games against the world's number one, Ke Jie. The program also won against five leading Go players who could consult with each other during the game.

The next development step was the program AlphaGo Zero, and in October 2017, DeepMind published a report about the development of this program. AlphaGo Zero started at zero, with reduced hardware structure. That is, the program knew the rules of Go but had no previous knowledge whatsoever about the game. However, it got better by playing against itself. Four Tensor Processing Units were used as hardware. With the help of TensorFlow it took AlphaGo Zero only three days to play better than the previous AlphaGo version which had beaten the best human Go player — but now AlphaGo Zero defeated its predecessor with 100-0.

Since Hassabis had been a good chess player as a junior it did not come as a surprise when DeepMind turned to chess after its success with Go. From the beginning of computer development chess has been considered the touchstone of artificial intelligence (AI).

DeepMind's Video about AlphaGo Zero



The last big leap forward in the development of computer chess happened a bit more than ten years ago when Fabien Letouzey published a new approach of the search tree with his program "Fruit". Vasik Rajlich, the developer of Rybka, significantly improved this approach. His program Rybka was later decompiled and several programmers used the Rybka code as a point of departure to write even further developed and improved chess programs of their own.

The basis of all these programs is an optimised Alpha-Beta search in which certain evaluation parameter (material, possibilities to develop, king safety, control of squares, etc.) establish the best moves for both sides. The more lines you can eliminate as irrelevant in the search tree, the more efficient is the search, and the program can go much deeper into the crucial main line. The program with the deeper search wins against the other programs. However, the drawing rate in top-level computer chess is very high.

Alpha Zero's Monte Carlo search tree is a completely different approach. At every point the program plays a number of games against itself, that always start with the current position. In the end it counts the results for an evaluation. In their paper "Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm" the authors described this approach in more detail.

In a learning phase (training) Alpha Zero used 5000 "first-generation" TPUs from the Google hardware park to play games against itself. 64 "second-generation" TPUs were used for the training of the neuronal network. And after only four hours of training Alpha Zero played better than Stockfish.

During the training phase Alpha Zero also played matches against Stockfish, always a hundred games, 50 with White and 50 with Black, and starting with ten popular openings. Alpha Zero won the majority of these matches but not all of them: in the Queens Gambit the program lost 1-2 with Black (47 games were drawn). In the Grünfeld (which DeepMind erroneously calls "Kings Indian") Alpha Zero lost 0-2 with Black while 48 games ended in a draw. In the Kan-Variation of the Sicilian it lost 3-7 with 40 draws. With colours reversed Alpha Zero always won clearly.

Image
...


Continued...

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Trigger Warning" thread
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:42 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 13467
Reputation points: 2181
André Schulz wrote:

Image

...

Image

Incidentally, this result equals a 65% success rate or an Elo-difference of about 130 points — which is the difference between Magnus Carlsen and a 2700 player.

Reaction and reception

The reaction of the international press was enthusiastic, comparable to the reaction when Deep Blue won the match against Garry Kasparov 20 years ago. Back then the value of IBM shares rose considerably. Google DeepMind certainly would not be unhappy if that happened to its parent company. But the reactions were also markedly uncritical. Breathless reporting along the lines of: A great super computer just taught itself chess in a couple of hours and now is better than the best chess program. Mankind took a great step forward (to where?). After all, this is the very impression the publication wanted to create.

On Chess.com Tore Romstad from the Stockfish team had the following to say about the match:

    The match results by themselves are not particularly meaningful because of the rather strange choice of time controls and Stockfish parameter settings: The games were played at a fixed time of 1 minute/move, which means that Stockfish has no use of its time management heuristics (lot of effort has been put into making Stockfish identify critical points in the game and decide when to spend some extra time on a move; at a fixed time per move, the strength will suffer significantly).


He goes on to note that the version of Stockfish was not the most current one and the specifics of its hardware set up was unusual and untested. By contrast, the "4 hours of learning" is actually misleading considering the hardware resources underlying that work.

    But in any case, Stockfish vs AlphaZero is very much a comparison of apples to orangutans. One is a conventional chess program running on ordinary computers, the other uses fundamentally different techniques and is running on custom designed hardware that is not available for purchase (and would be way out of the budget of ordinary users if it were).


Romstad admits that the comparison between two entirely different approaches has its charms and might give better impulses for future developments than the previous races in computer chess where one program with the same calculation methods is only slightly better than another.

Several players weighed in on the London Chess Classic live webcast, some of the most interesting remarks came from Viswanathan Anand:

    "Oviously this four hour thing is not too relevant — though it's a nice punchline — but it's obviously very powerful hardware, so it's equal to my laptop sitting for a couple of decades. I think the more relevant thing is that it figured everything out from scratch and that is scary and promising if you look at it...I would like to think that it should be a little bit harder. It feels annoying that you can work things out with just the rules of chess that quickly."


Indeed, for chess players who work with computer programs, the breakthrough of Alpha Zero has, for now, no use at all. In the short run, no adequate hardware for Alpha Zero will be available. And for chess programmers the results of the research project were rather disillusioning. And even if an Alpha Zero program would at some point in the future run on common hardware, the required powerful development environment would still be unaffordable. But if the project eventually spawns an open source cousin, one that could provide the necessary computer performance, it would spell the end of the individual and varied chess programs as we know them today. Until then, the like of Houdini and Komodo are still top dogs in the chess engine market.

GM Larry Kaufman from the Komodo team lauded the news with a caveat on Facebook:

    Yes, it's big news. I'm not sure yet how it will affect what we do. It depends on whether Google releases the program or keeps it proprietary. It wasn't a fair match in all respects, but nevertheless impressive.




Stockfish is program that easily wins over a human player. And now defeted by a rookie with only four hours of training. And notice that Alpha Zero beats the best Shogi program too. No need to play Shogi against humans. ;)

So what do you think? :roll:

There will be a rematch, with normal tournament rules.

So it goes.

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Trigger Warning" thread
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:06 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 24402
Reputation points: 17675
That is a seriously impressive level of parallel processing just to play chess.

I have a Rybka based program on my crappy laptop. The thing kicks ass. You get about 12-16 moves out when combinations start opening up and you had better have your head on swivel because the thing is coming for you.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jwilkerson and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group