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

[In situ]

Googles AI engie DeepMine has been trained to play chess. They call the program AlphaZero. Only given the rules of chess it had to experiment by random trial and errors games with itself. After 4 hours traning it was matched against the best chess engine in the world; Stockfish. After 100 games, AlphaZero won 28 and lose zero time, with 72 draws

For those not initiated this is quite impressive. As quoted form Chess.com:

"This would be akin to a robot being given access to thousands of metal bits and parts, but no knowledge of a combustion engine, then it experiments numerous times with every combination possible until it builds a Ferrari."​

Which is similar to the junkyard tornado argument creationists like to use to "disprove"evolution. According to creationists claims, it is like DeepMind's AlphaZero learned to plays chess similar to a tornado in a junkyard would create a Boeing 747. I know some Creationist now will claim AlphaZero been made by an intelligent designer. I grant telos, but it misses the point; AlphaZero still had to figure it out by itself, by random trial and errors, how to play chess at a super human level (see post #136 and post #140).

I am curios what take creationist have on this; if randomness cannot create design, no matter what time is given, then what did cause AlphaZero to achieve a superhuman performance in chess in less than four hours time?

Errata: AlphaZero did not achieve super human performance in four hours, after four hours training it was able to beat Stockfish. AlphaZero had to continue train fore a few more hours to reach super human performance.

N.B.
Post #81 - Clarification of my question.
Post #82 - Why AlphaZero is not like other chess engines
Post #86 #155 #158 - Why rules must be given as a priori knowledge
Post #136 - How AlphaZero is analogues to evolution
Post #140 - the argument in short form and why the telos answer is irrelevant
Post #153 - my own tentative answer
Post #198 - considering the different forms of telos with AlphaZero
Post #288 - definition of a 2nd order machine

 

[Chesterton]

I don't see how this is similar, unless you think tornadoes are created, trained and programmed by intelligence.

 

[In situ]

I don't see how this is similar, unless you think tornadoes are created, trained and programmed by intelligence.

Like I wrote in my OP, I granted this already; whether someone creates a tornado to run past a junkyard or if it was naturally created does not matter in my oppion, i.e. I would think most would agree the origin of the tornado does not matter.

However, you seems to disagree. Why do you believe the origin is crucial?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't see how this is similar, unless you think tornadoes are created, trained and programmed by intelligence.

The point is that algorithms based on random variation and selection are very powerful, capable of creating complex novelties. The creationist argument is not about where evolution came from but that random variation and selection is inherently incapable.

 

[pitabread]

I know some Creationist now will claim the AlphaZero been made by an intelligent designer.

I doubt you'll get any creationists here able to look past this point.

 

[In situ]

The creationist argument is not about where evolution came from but that random variation and selection is inherently incapable.

I understand. However, assume we find a tornado which just assemble a Boeing 747, i.e. AlphaZero plays chess better than a grand master, then why is it that creationist argue it is not possible, despite we got a "Boeing 747" in front of our eyes created by a "tornado"?

 

[Dawnhammer]

I doubt you'll get any creationists here able to look past this point.

Since they are not interested in neither logic or evidence I doubt they will get even that far.

 

[In situ]

I doubt you'll get any creationists here able to look past this point.

I am aware of that, and they don't have to. I am trying, by illustrating the problem as I see it, to find out why creationists believe an intelligent created "tornado", which to me appear to be identical with a natural "tornado", can create a "Boeing 747", because obviously it can or creationist may be able to shed some light on how they reason about this.

 

[In situ]

Since they are not interested in neither logic or evidence I doubt they will get even that far.

I did not post this thread just to bash people. If you do not have something to add besides bulling please restrain yourself.

 

[Tom 1]

Googles AI engie DeepMine has been trained to play chess. They call the program AlphaZero. Only given the rules of chess it had to experiment by random trial and errors games with itself. After 4 hours traning it was matched against the best chess engine in the world; Stockfish. After 100 games, AlphaZero won 28 and lose zero time, with 72 draws

For those not initiated this is quite impressive. As quoted form Chess.com:

"This would be akin to a robot being given access to thousands of metal bits and parts, but no knowledge of a combustion engine, then it experiments numerous times with every combination possible until it builds a Ferrari."​

Which is similar to the junkyard tornado argument creationists like to use to "disprove"evolution. It is like DeepMind's AlphaZero learned to plays chess similar to a tornado in a junkyard would create a Boeing 747. I know some Creationist now will claim the AlphaZero been made by an intelligent designer. I grant that, but it misses the point; AlphaZero still had to figure out but itself, by random trial and errors, how to play chess on super human level.

I am curios what take creationist have on this; if randomness cannot create design, no matter what time is given, then what did cause AlphaZero to achieve a superhuman performance in chess in less than four hours time?

A tornado has no capability to learn, it starts out as a tornado, it ends as a tornado. It doesn’t learn how to throw rubbish around in different ways as it blows through a junkyard. AlphaZero is designed to learn through trial and error. It remembers things, stores data, recognises patterns etc. Tornadoes don’t do any of that. They aren’t analogous.

 

[Dawnhammer]

I did not post this thread just to bash people.

Oh ok, besides the bashing part you intended as mentioned above what were the other things you were looking for ?

 

[jacks]

Interesting OP. (I love chess.) I agree that we get many interesting variations from randomness. However, I don't know if the Alpha Zero program was truly only random. As you stated it was "given the rules of chess". That seems to be like a big leap up from assembly a Boeing 747 in a junkyard. Unless the program was given detailed designs of a Boeing and then just created the jet from the parts available. This seems different to me than just randomness.

 

[Chesterton]

Like I wrote in my OP, I grated this already; whether someone creates a tornado to run past a junkyard or if it was naturally created does not matter in my oppion, i.e. I would think most would agree the origin of the tornado does not matter.

However, you seems to disagree. Why do you believe the origin is crucial?

The only thing I disagree with is when you say "AlphaZero still had to figure out but itself..." (assuming you meant "by" itself). Reducing down this same logic, I could say "I pushed a rock downhill and it rolled by itself". Intelligence had to have designed AlphaZero to do what it does, so I don't see how it's similar to a natural tornado doing anything.

 

[In situ]

A tornado has no capability to learn, it starts out as a tornado, it ends as a tornado. It doesn’t learn how to throw rubbish around in different ways as it blows through a junkyard. AlphaZero is programmed to learn through trial and error. It remembers things, stores data, recognises patterns etc. Tornadoes don’t do any of that. They aren’t analogous.

I agree, but that is not the comparison I am trying to make: I am comparing evolution to AlphaZero, they both operates in the same manner. However, in one case creationist says it not possible and the other case we just seen it is possible. So what is the distinction according to creationists?

 

[Tom 1]

I agree, but that is not the comparision I am trying to make: I an comparing evolution to AlohaZero, they both operates in the same manner. However, in one case creationist says it not possible and the other case we just seen it is possible. So what is the distinction according to creationists?

Your analogy implies that evolution is driven by some sort of volitional force with a predetermined goal designed to be capable of learning as it goes. You are disproving your own argument.

 

[In situ]

Oh ok, besides the bashing part you intended as mentioned above what were the other things you were looking for ?

Being illogical does not makes a person bad, however making up things about others (me) does. I dunno why you are so agressive, but don't let it go out on me or others.

 

[In situ]

Your analogy implies that evolution is driven by some sort of volitional force with a predetermined goal designed to be capable of learning as it goes. You are disproving your own argument.

I am not sure I understand, are you saying creationists own argument against evolution is self-defeating?

 

[afishamongmany]

I am curios what take creationist have on this; if randomness cannot create design, no matter what time is given, then what did cause AlphaZero to achieve a superhuman performance in chess in less than four hours time?

Hi folks - not being very bright I'd usually take at least four hours to get my head around this, but hey live dangerously, so just some quick thoughts before I go horizontal.
AlphaZero didn't "create a design" it was given the rules of a game and according to the given rules of its program it 'learnt' to play the game.
Playing chess is not in the same universe as assembling a Boeing 747 and assembling a Boeing 747 is not in the same universe as creating creation. I've taught people to play chess but assembling Boeing 747s? No I know my limits.
The answer to your question is those very human tick tock tech people caused AlphaZero and its caperbilities.
The idea that enough monkeys, with enough keyboards, given enough time, will eventually produce literature is as logical as loony toons.
Go well
><>

 

[Tom 1]

I am not sure I understand, are you saying creationists own argument against evolution is self-defeating?

No, but if I have understood what you are saying you are comparing a piece of software with the theory of random selection. The software is designed to complete a task; in that sense it is volitional, i.e it has a task to accomplish and a preprogrammed ability to complete that task. It does this by trial and error and by remembering and applying what it learns through this process. Evolutionary theory does not allow for a task to complete or a process of learning, or there being any sense of there being a predetermined goal (except in all cases by metaphor). What you are describing is a better argument for creationists than for those who believe in a blind process of non volitional random selection.

 

[In situ]

The only thing I disagree with is when you say "AlphaZero still had to figure out but itself..." (assuming you meant "by" itself). Reducing down this same logic, I could say "I pushed a rock downhill and it rolled by itself". Intelligence had to have designed AlphaZero to do what it does, so I don't see how it's similar to a natural tornado doing anything.

Yes indeed I meant "by", thanks for pointing out the error (will edit it).

Anyhow, I strongly disagree. Can you please explain why you do not think AlphaZero evolved by random play and selection? That is, if AlphaZero was given knowledge by design how to play chess then why was this design not already achieved by Stockfish - the top most ranked chess engine in the world until AlphaZero came around a frankly made Stockfish look like an amateur?