DeepMind's AlphaZero plays chess like a tornado in the junkyard

[Speedwell]

The "emergent property" is called "evolution" and "not something imposed on matter" means in this context "is implied by natural laws". Correct me if I am wrong, but it seams almost as you are afraid to use a direct phrasing of meaning.

No, I was merely rejecting dualism. "Life" is not an ontological entitity which is joined to matter to create living beings.

 

[Chesterton]

There is a difference between a machine which do something and a machine which design something which in turn will do something. Let us call this 1st and 2nd order machines. The purpose of a 2nd order machine, like AlphaZero and evolution, is to create another machine, like a 1st order chess playing machine or new species.

Your bulldozer is a 1st order machine, controlled by humans who are 2nd order "machines". Human designed 1st order machine are built to extend our bodies capabilities beyond our own. Human designed 2nd order machines are not only built to extend machines capacities but also to extend our design capacity beoynd our own.

I don't recognize a distinction between 1st order and 2nd order. Humans make a machine to do something, and it does something, whatever it may be.

There is gross misunderstanding in this thread what the purpose, or given telos, of AlphaZero is. It seams to me people has conflate 1st order machine with 2nd order machines. All machines has telos, but AlphaZeros telos is not to play chess. Its telos is to design a 1st order chess playing machine which telos is, or become, to play chess. It is the telos of this 1st order machine which AlphaZero designed by itself - no human was involved in this, only randomness and selection.

AZ did not design another machine, unless it's something you haven't mentioned yet.

Second order machines are machine which builds other machine with a telos which, in general, is not the same telos as the 2nd order machine itself has. If the telos is the same then the telos is know as self-replication. Which is the case of Life, i.e. the purpose of Life is to create more Life.

So I'm guessing you must be staunchly opposed to contraception and abortion, right?

 

[durangodawood]

...AZ did not design another machine, unless it's something you haven't mentioned yet....

Like he said, AZ designed a chess playing machine.

 

[Chesterton]

I dont think thats "by definition" at all. I think what youre describing is a tenet of faith that you are imposing on the discussion. If you look at definitions of "thinking", "reasoning", etc, you'll find a chain of circular references with no solid backstop in any entity that starts its own causal chains of events. That last part is where faith comes in.

If you ask me, "reasoning" is processing statements according to observations and logical rules. That can be done by both human minds and by machines (or machine minds, if you will).

It's not a tenet of faith, it's a common-sense recognition of the fact that if your thoughts are determined by nature, they cannot be said to be reasonable. If you're predestined by physics and chemistry to choose choice A over choice B, it would be absurd to say that you reasoned over it and chose it.

 

[Chesterton]

Like he said, AZ designed a chess playing machine.

I must have missed that post. What's the other machine called?

 

[durangodawood]

I must have missed that post. What's the other machine called?

I dont think its named. Why dont you propose one!

 

[Chesterton]

I dont think its named. Why dont you propose one!

More importantly, can I get one at Walmart? Just for once I'd like to beat some of these online hotshots!

 

[durangodawood]

It's not a tenet of faith, it's a common-sense recognition of the fact that if your thoughts are determined by nature, they cannot be said to be reasonable. If you're predestined by physics and chemistry to choose choice A over choice B, it would be absurd to say that you reasoned over it and chose it.

Reasoning and determinism can go hand in hand. Nothing about determinism implies that logical processing and observation (ie reasoning) cannot be part of the causal chain.

(Personally, as a matter of faith I dont believe in strict determinism, btw.)

 

[durangodawood]

More importantly, can I get one at Walmart? Just for once I'd like to beat some of these online hotshots!

For the chess playing machine that AZ designed, I propose the name Gilbert Keith.

 

[Chesterton]

Reasoning and determinism can go hand in hand.

Bah, humbug.

For the chess playing machine that AZ designed, I propose the name Gilbert Keith.

I'm flattered.

 

[durangodawood]

Bah, humbug....

What exactly is there in a deterministic view that excludes logical processing (including possible errors) and observation from contributing to a causal chain?

 

[In situ]

The word "intellect" implies reasoning.

Reasoning does not imply consciousness, which you seems to imply in the below.

As you said about having to define things in this thread: is AZ reasoning?

Why would AlphaZero need to be able to reason to complete its task? All it need to do is to do a random selection, i.e a make a choice. Why would this require reasoning? I think you are, unknowingly to yourself, trying to create a straw man here.

I don't believe so, because I believe reasoning is, almost by definition, something more than matter obeying laws which it has no choice about.

Then your beliefs are incorrect. Because otherwise one should be able to point at any algorithms which reasons and tell what the emergent property is (I presume you are fishing for consciousness here). Which is just nonsense to claim since no reasoning algorithm, as far as I know, contains such emergent properties. Her is an example to prove you are wrong:

1. A implies B
2. A is true
3. Therefore B

This reasoning is fairly simple to implement as a mechanical device. Therefore you are wrong in your assumptions.

AZ didn't actually choose one course of action over another

Yes it did. AlhpaZero makes random choice. How else, if not for a choice, can AlphaZero selectively traverse a search tree? Selection implies a choice. If you are of another opinion then you better explain yourself what it is you mean, because right not you do not make much sense at all.

it simply followed directions

I agree, but it also follows random directions.

to "achieve" an outcome which was determined by human intelligence

The choice AlphaZero makes are in no conceivable way, at any stage, determined by "human intelligence". Where did you get that idea from? The choice was determined by a role of a die. Your statement indcates an lack of understanding how ALphaZero works and what Monte Carlo Tree Search is about. If you are of another opinion, then please explain yourself better, because right now you do not make no sense at all to me.

(after all, humans invented chess, and invented what it means to "win" at chess).

You conflate the telos given to AlphaZero with the telos of a chess playing machine. AlphaZeros telos, given by humans, is not to play chess but to design a chess playing machine. A chess playing machines telos' is to play chess. This second telos is given to the machine by AlphaZero. That is why we call the machine designed by AlphaZero a chess playing machine, because if it was not the designed machine would play somethign else, like tic-tac-toe or Go. Please also see post #198.

The point is; if AlphaZero is analogues to evolution, which it is (see post #136), then evolution works and can also build machines with telos. And therefore the creationist standpoint is incorrect.

But I guess people who are determinists would disagree, and say that AZ is doing the exact same thing human brains do.

It is unclear to me what determinism has to do with this and why it would lead to the consequences you claim.

 

[In situ]

Bah, humbug.

Reasoning is deterministic because logic is deterministic:

1. A implies B
2. A is true
3. Therefore B

Indeterministic reasoning is know as "illogical" or "creativity".

 

[In situ]

What exactly is there in a deterministic view that excludes logical processing

Nothing, since determinism implies logic. I.e. logic is based on patterns produced by determinstic process.

 

[In situ]

Hello again In situ,

I'll respond to your responses first (your words in red) then in a second post I'll do my best to say why chalk and cheese are not the same.

At a fast glance I faild to see any argument beyond "I disagree". I may be wrong, but based on my first impression, all I can respond with is: you are free to disagree. But also welcome to make an argument onto why you disagree.

 

[durangodawood]

Nothing, since determinism implies logic. I.e. logic is based on patterns produced by determinstic process.

Yes, we know that.

But Chesterton seems to hold that "reasoning" cannot happen in a deterministic fashion. I'm guessing its because he feels the need to make room for a extra-material soul/spirit that animates us.

I believe in the extra-material soul/spirit too. But obviously reasoning doesnt require it. We already have deterministic machines that can apply reasoning.

 

[In situ]

Yes. Really. The new ideas I'm talking about are the chess tactics AZ has used that have surprised chess experts.

Aha, yes I agree. This is indeed new. This is an age in where humans no longer need to teach machine to play chess, but machines can teach humans to play chess, which in turn helps human to tech machine to play even better chess.

 

[In situ]

Yes, we know that.

But Chesterton seems to hold that "reasoning" cannot happen in a deterministic fashion.

It does not surprise me. Some people, in order to maintain their belief system, might, unknowingly to themselves, switch the meaning of word or blurred the meaning so it can mean one thing and the opposite at the same time, or ignore the meaning completely, or simply express themselves in ways which is technically correct but hold open the option for a contrary interpretations. Our minds are experts in fouling ourselves all the time, and the words we use affects our thinking (and emotions) much more than we think.

In other word, some people are afraid to challenge their own belief system by being precise since it might cause cognitive dissonance. And that I can assure you is not a pleasant feeling if it challenges your core beliefs. Most people will stay away from it by all means possible, so I do not blame anyone for doing so.

My point is: I am probably touching on many things which are sensitive to many people: such as what it means to have free will, are we just machine or do we have soul, does god exists, etc etc. And this will naturally makes people feel uncomfortable - and that for good reason. Anyone should feel uncomfortable, when our moral values are put in questions.

But that is not my intention with this thread. It is to learn and deepen my own understanding and how people react is not something I can control more than try to comfort and play nicely.

 

[Chesterton]

What exactly is there in a deterministic view that excludes logical processing (including possible errors) and observation from contributing to a causal chain?

I didn't say it excluding logical processing. I responded to you talking about reason.

 

[Speedwell]

My point is: I am probably touching on many things which are sensitive to many people: such as what it means to have free will, are we just machine or do we have soul, does god exists, etc etc. And this will naturally makes people feel uncomfortable...

And some of us positively enjoy it. We're called Anglicans