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

[In situ]

We already have deterministic machines that can apply reasoning.

It is not apparent to me how an inderterminstic machine is able to reason, unless it restrict a domain of itself to be deterministic.

 

[In situ]

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

I am not sure what Anglicanism is about, but are you saying it is faith driven?

 

[durangodawood]

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

You have a goofy definition of reasoning.

Reasoning, as a verb, should be about just the action. But you introduce this unwarranted requirement that it requires a certain kind of reasoner-subject, namely one with a soul or similar. You justify this with an appeal to "common sense". Thats exceedingly weak.

 

[Chesterton]

You have a goofy definition of reasoning.

Reasoning, as a verb, should be about just the action. But you introduce this unwarranted requirement that it requires a certain kind of reasoner-subject, namely one with a soul or similar. You justify this with an appeal to "common sense". Thats exceedingly weak.

I said nothing about a soul. It's not about just the action, it's about perception, observation, evaluation, measurement, comparing and contrasting, judging, morality can come into play too, all kinds of things...then a decision.

 

[In situ]

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

Reason is based on logic and logic in turn is derived from determinism. When durangodawood said "Reasoning and determinism can go hand in hand." you responded by claiming this was not the case. So yes, durangodawood question "What exactly is there in a deterministic view that excludes logical processing" to you is justifiable.

 

[durangodawood]

I said nothing about a soul. It's not about just the action, it's about perception, observation, evaluation, measurement, comparing and contrasting, judging, morality can come into play too, all kinds of things...then a decision.

Are all of those in your list required to satisfy a definition of reasoning?

If not, could you pare it down to whats required, so we can think about if a machine could or could not do it?

 

[In situ]

I said nothing about a soul. It's not about just the action, it's about perception, observation, evaluation, measurement, comparing and contrasting, judging, morality can come into play too, all kinds of things...then a decision.

As I see it, you are unclear about your own meanings of words and as a consequence it make your own thinking lose precision. As the next consequence it makes your thinking unclear to the rest of us since we do not understand the meaning in how you use words.

 

[Speedwell]

I am not sure what Anglicanism is about, but are you saying it is faith driven?

Something like that. If faith is any good it must help us deal with reality as it is. I am impatient with creationists' arguments of the form, "If God created the universe it must of necessity be thus-and-so, and if science says something different it must be wrong or satanic."

 

[In situ]

Chesterton as small suggestion. Would you like to carry on with the meaning I suggest and see what it leads to just to see if we can agree, and then after that point out what you disagree with and why?

 

[In situ]

Something like that. If faith is any good it must help us deal with reality as it is. I am impatient with creationists' arguments of the form, "If God created the universe it must of necessity be thus-and-so, and if science says something different it must be wrong or satanic."

I makes me better understand your way to express yourself. Is it correct to say you use language to "prove" the apparent contradiction between faith and reality are just superficial and at deeper level there is unity?

 

[Chesterton]

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

Of course reasoning implies consciousness.

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 never said AZ needed to reason. Don't know where you got that from.

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.

Algorithms do not reason. Inanimate, unconscious things do not reason. And you're having some trouble with it yourself.

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.

My good man, are you on drugs? Electricity, no matter how your arrange it's flow, does not make "choices". You want to change the definitions of "reason" and "choice" to support your argument. You started out with an OP which was a little eccentric, now you're sounding completely bonkers.

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.

You're putting words in my mouth. Read what I said again.

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.

Did AlphaZero name it's creation? Durango wasn't sure. Is there a picture of it online?

 

[Chesterton]

Reason is based on logic and logic in turn is derived from determinism. When durangodawood said "Reasoning and determinism can go hand in hand." you responded by claiming this was not the case. So yes, durangodawood question "What exactly is there in a deterministic view that excludes logical processing" to you is justifiable.

No it's not. He just shifted a goalpost (perhaps unintentionally) from "reason" to "logical processing".

 

[Chesterton]

Are all of those in your list required to satisfy a definition of reasoning?

If not, could you pare it down to whats required, so we can think about if a machine could or could not do it?

I'm not a reductionist. That's your job.

 

[Chesterton]

As I see it, you are unclear about your own meanings of words and as a consequence it make your own thinking lose precision. As the next consequence it makes your thinking unclear to the rest of us since we do not understand the meaning in how you use words.

Tell me which word(s) you don't understand and I'll Google it for you.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm not a reductionist. That's your job.

Your breezy non-justified dismissiveness is not at all conducive to deep thinking about these ideas.

Your heavily conditioned intuitions seems to be sufficient for you. I'll admit, those are good enough for making your way through the world while feeling "ok", but they are really insufficient for probing the implications of the rise of AI, or any deeply challenging subject really.

 

[Chesterton]

Chesterton as small suggestion. Would you like to carry on with the meaning I suggest and see what it leads to just to see if we can agree, and then after that point out what you disagree with and why?

I don't know what you're referring to by "the meaning you suggest". What meaning for what? But sure, I'll hear you out, although I'm not willing to agree to a custom-made meaning which is incorrect to start with.

 

[Chesterton]

Your breezy non-justified dismissiveness is not at all conducive to deep thinking about these ideas.

Your heavily conditioned intuitions seems to be sufficient for you. I'll admit, those are good enough for making your way through the world while feeling "ok", but they are really insufficient for probing the implications of the rise of AI, or any deeply challenging subject really.

A thinly-veiled ad hom? I thought we were disagreeing together so nicely. Anyway, no it's not dismissiveness to refuse to engage in a practice I disagree with. And I'm not relying on conditioned intuitions, I've read a little and thought a lot about this. If you want to move man and consciousness and reason over to the math department because it helps you cope with the mystery of being a living agent, that's your choice. I may not have every answer, but I don't believe that is the right solution.

 

[In situ]

I don't recognize a distinction between 1st order and 2nd order.

A second order machine is a machine that creates or designs other machines. A first order machine cannot do this.

Humans make a machine to do something, and it does something, whatever it may be.

In this case it was made to design another machine. Is that so hard to understand?

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

Just because you claim it to be so does not make it so. And I have mention it several times, and as well explain it in several ways what I mean with it. But all you do is disagree with it and referring to you own ignorance as evidence for being right.

Question: did or did not AlphaZero learn to play chess?

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

Excuse me, but what does this has to do with anything at hand discussed?

 

[In situ]

I don't know what you're referring to by "the meaning you suggest". What meaning for what?

I am seriously considering whether or not you are only trolling this thread now.

But sure, I'll hear you out, although

Then reread the op and follow the suggested reading at end of the post. If you find something unclear, I am willing to explain.

I'm not willing to agree to a custom-made meaning which is incorrect to start with.

Can you point at what I said which is incorrect ? But before you do that, I would like to suggest you look at the video below and explain to me how this fits into your definition of reasoning:

[/QUOTE]

 

[Chesterton]

A second order machine is a machine that creates or designs other machines. A first order machine cannot do this.

So what? There are lots of machines which can't do what other machines do. My toaster can't wash my clothes.

In this case it was made to design another machine. Is that so hard to understand?

Just because you claim it to be so does not make it so. And I have mention it several times, and as well explain it in several ways what I mean with it. But all you do is disagree with it and referring to you own ignorance as evidence for being right.

I have asked for help in curing my ignorance about that. I've asked both Durango and you to identify this machine that this other machine built, a name, a picture, anything...but I've gotten no answer.

Question: did or did not AlphaZero learn to play chess?

From what I've gleaned off the internet, some people say yes, some people say no. It doesn't help that the people who built AZ aren't completely transparent about their methods or their results.

Excuse me, but what does this has to do with anything at hand discussed?

If you believe the purpose of life is life (yeah I know that sounds kind of stupid and tautological, but that's what you said), I assume you want us all to fulfill our purpose. No?