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

[In situ]

A thinly-veiled ad hom?

*cough* Who said something about abortion earlier?

 

[Chesterton]

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

You're in Amsterdam. When you implied that electricity makes choices, I seriously considered whether you are posting to this thread from one of your infamous "coffee shops".

 

[In situ]

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

So your point is that you do not understand? Why did you not say so to start with instead of trying to argue with me? And if you asked something, then it has passed unnoticed to me so far. I haven't been able to read all post yest so it is a possibility I missed your question. However, my failure to respond to you does not justify you to start to argue against me based on your own ignorance.

From what I've gleaned off the internet, some people say yes, some people say no.

So you do not have any opinion on your own. Do you have any reason for why you pick one opinion before another?

It doesn't help that the people who built AZ aren't completely transparent about their methods or their results.

What makes you believe that? Can you name anything relevant to this discussion which they haven't been transparent about and why that would affect anything I claimed about AlphaZero?

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),

It is not something I believe. It is a deduction based on evolutionary theory. And what I said is that according to evolutionary theory the meaning of life is to produce more life. If this wasn't the case, there would be no life. Is that so hard to understand?

I assume you want us all to fulfill our purpose. No?

This comment, like your other comments suggesting I am opposed to contraception and abortion, is a sign of aggressiveness on your part. I do not know why you are trying to provoke me, but perhaps you should take a break from commenting for a while and do some self-reflection before you make your next comment.

 

[In situ]

You're in Amsterdam. When you implied that electricity makes choices, I seriously considered whether you are posting to this thread from one of your infamous "coffee shops".

This is the 3rd ad hominem you make against me. What is the purpose of these? And why do you misrepresent what I been written?

 

[In situ]

From what I've gleaned off the internet, some people say yes, some people say no.

Why not make life easy for yourself and just concede AlphaZero did learn to play chess by itself? Because then we can continue with the question on how AlphaZero learned to play chess.

Quote from the paper:

"In this paper, we apply a similar but fully generic algorithm, which we call AlphaZero, to the games of chess and shogi as well as Go, without any additional domain knowledge except the rules of the game, demonstrating that a general-purpose reinforcement learning algorithm can achieve, tabula rasa, superhuman performance across many challenging domains"
​

What makes you believe someone just need to know the rules to beat a chess master is beyond me.

Wikipedia:

"Tabula rasa (/ˈtæbjələ ˈrɑːsə, -zə, ˈreɪ-/) refers to the epistemological idea that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception."​

It doesn't help that the people who built AZ aren't completely transparent about their methods or their results.

The chess community been impressed with the 10 released games. I guess they manage to make their point at least to them. Here you can read the paper in full and explain to me why you think they not be transparent enough about how AlphaZero works.

​

 

[Speedwell]

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?

The purpose of life is to go on, to teem. That's the only way it will work. But that's life on general--it doesn't have to be our only purpose as children of The Fall. Reminds me of the seedy creationist argument that if we are related to monkeys we have no alternative but to act like monkeys (and have sex whenever we want being the subtext).

 

[In situ]

I've asked ... you to identify this machine that this other machine built, a name, a picture, anything...but I've gotten no answer.

Quoting myself from post #198:

"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."​

 

[In situ]

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.

I been pondering on where the Gordian knot is located in your mind (and perhaps my own), and maybe this is what it is like. Perhaps when I describe a 2nd order and 1st order machine you are imagine a machine which produces wrenches. What you then see is a machine who has been specified, by humans, to produce a wrench.

However, this analogue is incorrect because the wrench producing machine is still a 1st order machine. In order for the machine to become a 2nd order machine, it need to be a machine which produces a wrench producing machine, not the wrench itself. Thus the name 2nd order machine.

AlphaZero is a machine which have produces a chess playing program (a machine which produces a wrench producing machine) which in turn plays chess (a machine which produces wrenches). Does this make sense to you?

Put in other, more abstract, words; AlphaZero is a machine who has studied the effects of the rules in the world it reside, i.e. the tabula rasa of AlphaZero, and then, based on what been learned, designed a machine who know how to act in this world. This machine then acts in the world, i.e. the machine created by AlphaZero plays chess.

Why I cannot show a picture or point at this machine is because this machine is embeded as an information processing process in AlphaZero. Compare this machine with software which can play chess on a computer. At best I can describe the function of this software, but i cannot point at the hardware and say "there is the machine!" because the machine is not made of matter, but information.

 

[afishamongmany]

Ok In Situ, so you think that the new computer on the block, AZ, does its stuff in a way that is analogous to how the theory of evolution works. I say no, the two things are chalk and cheese.

Lets use your post #136 as a base, some of it is not very clear but it'll do.
In that post you twin up the following:-

1- the process of evolution <> the computer's algorithm

2-biological mutations <> random selection of nodes (what exactly are these nodes? for the moment I'll think of them as packets of data/possible options)

3-natural selection <> selection of nodes (but if the selection was random then it would be like a mutation??)

4-biological reproduction <> winning solutions produced by learning patterns

5-the laws of nature <> the rules of chess

1—mindless and passive >< initiated and activated by intelligence (human)

2—unpredictable, haphazard >< is this what nodes are? Are they not there waiting
to be selected?

3—again mindless and passive >< again initiated, activated by intelligence

4—evolution demands step-
changes not pattern learning >< mathematical solutions are not life form change

5—Yea, order out of chaos is what it's all about. We know where the rules of chess and computer code come from, but the laws of nature? The theory of evolution requires chance, chess does not.

It seems to me that the two most significant differences in this comparison are, first mindlessness against intelligence, secondly hazard against real choice. The theory of evolution embraces 'the laws of nature' but likes to keep any kind of lawmaker out of the equation. The theory of evolution is not driven by the laws of natural selection. It is driven by the need for the haphazard occurrence of frequent, timely, beneficial mutations. No mutations – no selection – no change. For many of the step changes required these different mutations need to 'arrive' on scene together.

The theory of evolution is not a computer program, chalk and cheese
><>

 

[afishamongmany]

What some one like Speedwell wants to know is why you think those are the only two possibilities for 'theistic evolution.' Do you really think that God can only act in His universe through one dimension of causality?

Hi Speedwell, I didn't say these were the only two possibilities. I certainly try not limit God, though it is impossible for Him to lie. That part of my post was simply a response to In Situ's implying that some people believing in 'theistic evolution' makes 'irrelevant' any bringing of God to the discussion by those who don't believe in 'theistic evolution'.
Go well
><>

 

[Tom 1]

What is your take on that many religions and myths claims, including Christianity, the origin of the universe is from some form of chaos?

I'll attempt an outline of what some other cultures/religions teach before tackling the bible version, as I'd like to spend some more time on that. It's a bit of a mixed bag -

The Koran doesn't include a contiguous account of the creation, but there are different parts of various surahs that relate to creation. The initial stages are:

1. Water is created
2. Al-arsh (the throne) is created
3. A record of everything that would happen between this point and the day of judgement was created
4. The earth and the skies were created

In all there are either 6 or 8 days or stages of creation in the Islamic account, depending on how you interpret the material. The word 'day' in Arabic apparently has the same quality of Yom in Hebrew, i.e that it can have different meanings, including 'day' or an indefinite period of time.

The Koran doesn't mention chaos as a stage of creation as such. The implication seems to be that the other created things were created out of the water, but there are probably different views on that. Water is used in the bible and other ancient writings as a metaphor for chaos (as well as for rebirth and new life) and of the forces of chaos (the latter in Mesopotamian myths). It may be that this is the implication in the Koran, that the water represents chaos, but I don't know if that was the intent.

In Mesopotamian myths the gods, and sometimes humans, are seen as fighting against 'the forces of chaos' that threaten to overwhelm order and civilization. There isn't any record of this chaos being a pre-creation state however. The relationship between Mesopotamian gods and creation is complex and changes over time, as do the names, identities and relative hierarchical positions of some of them. The Mesopotamian Gods were part of the created order and much more involved in day to day life, e.g. travelling up and down the Euphrates, playing tricks on each other etc. There is what looks like at least a very strong correlation between life at the time and this idea of 'forces of chaos' - i.e. the gradual development from small isolated settlements to city states, constant fighting in the early stages between these states, the unpredictable flooding of the Tigris and the Euphrates, and the later threat from nomadic 'barbarians' like the Gutians to civilized rule.

I don't know anything about Hinduism so I just looked this up - the idea seems to be that the universe is in an eternal cycle of self recreating, and the initial state every time is deep water on which floats a snake. As in the Koran it might be that the water is being used to represent chaos, don't know.

The closest to the Biblical story with regard to this specific idea are the Greco-Roman creation myths, they contain the same idea that the first stage of creation was chaos, and everything else came out of that (nb the key difference being that in the Greco-Roman myths the gods were part of the created order, themselves coming out of the chaos).

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, but if I have understood what you are saying you are comparing a piece of software with the theory of random selection.

First of all, selection isn't random. I'll assume you mean mutation.

You should read up on genetic algorithms. It's a technique, based on the theory of random mutation followed by non-random selection, to achieve solutions to pre-defined problems. Used a lot in solving design issues or general optimization of systems.

The software is designed to complete a task

Which in the case of optimization / AI / genetic algorithms, that task is to apply evolutionary processes to tackle problems and come up with solutions.

The fact that the software was created isn't relevant to the fact that the processes it implements actually work.

Consider the process of water turning to ice in a freezer.... the fact that the freezer was designed/created, isn't relevant to the process of freezing. If the same/similar conditions exist in the natural world, then the same process will take place.

That is the point.

i.e it has a task to accomplish and a preprogrammed ability to complete that task.

Yep. Just like the freezer. It's task is to extract heat from a controlled environment. It has a preprogrammed ability to complete that task. That water turns to ice in that controlled environment, isn't part of the design of the freezer. It is just what happens to water in such an environment.

So, really, what is implemented in the design, are just the parameters that make a process possible. In the case of a freezer, the process made possible is "freezing". In a genetic algoritm, the process made possible is "evolving towards a local optimum". In the case of an AI engine, it is the process of "learning" (which oftenly, btw, will involve genetic algoritms).

It does this by trial and error and by remembering and applying what it learns through this process.

In other words: by discarding the bad solutions and keep on fine-tuning the better solutions.

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).

In biological evolution, the goal is to survive and reproduce. The trial/error part, is natural selection: the fittest have the best chance of survival and reproduction.

What you are describing is a better argument for creationists than for those who believe in a blind process of non volitional random selection.

Trial/error is blind by definition.

 

[Tom 1]

What is your take on that many religions and myths claims, including Christianity, the origin of the universe is from some form of chaos?

I'm not sure if you can get a link from the Genesis narrative to the idea you describe of an underlying chaos. E.g. The word variously translated as chaos/confusion/without form/without order/disordered etc in Genesis 1.2 is used in relation to the earth, not the whole of creation. To give some context, there's a generally accepted view that Genesis was either written or compiled by Moses, with some later additions (e.g. explanations for later readers of changes in place names and customs) and probably some further editing (too much info to sum up here). Whoever the author or authors were, I don't see any reason to believe that God gave or had any intention to give any special scientific insight to him/them. There are different layers to the narrative but one that makes the most sense to me is that the account was written to establish certain truths that mark out God from other 'gods' believed in at the time, these are some of them:

1. God simply 'is', and is not part of creation
2. Creation had a beginning, and God brought creation into being
3. God set mankind as steward over creation
4. There are 'rules' to living which in different ways and to different extents apply both to mankind and to animals. Breaking these rules substantially affects creation in a number of ways.

This fits in with the ongoing motif throughout the OT of Israel's unique mission and separateness from 'the nations', and the idea that how we live has real significance.

 

[xianghua]

if we will have a self replicating molecule it will not evolve into a self replicating robot (a penguin for instance). so a penguin cant evolve stepwise from a self replicaiting molecule. see also here: the self replicating watch argument

 

[xianghua]

My reply to this is found in post #140. In short; you assume evolution cannot work since it is not theistic. However, anyone is free to assume it is theistic, and therefore you still haven't answer the question.

i didnt read the entire first post. so or so: if you believe in a theistic evolution what make you think that this is the best explanation?

 

[durangodawood]

They should have made a special impressive looking box for the chess playing program to "live in", so we could post a picture and point to it. For some reason I cant figure out, that would have helped.

 

[Tom 1]

This is why I recommend Jordan Peterson's Biblical series. Jordan is a professor in clinical psychology a the University of Toronto/Canada and he attempts, starting from Genesis, to defend the moral values in the Bible based on science.

Started watching the first in this series, looks interesting. There's a lot in the bible that relates to how people function emotionally and psychologically, it's just difficult to access because it isn't written in a modern style. Henry Cloud and John Townsend do a very good job of drawing these meanings out in their book collaborations.

 

[Tom 1]

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

You need to set up a kind of Bilbo Baggins riddle GK. Or do you mean beat people at chess?

 

[Tom 1]

It is not a science question, but I am asking for your personal opinion about the fact that many religion sugets the origin of the universe came from a chaos. I find it quite faschinting since physics seams to suggest the basic foundation on which our reality relay is pure chaos. In fact so chaotic that that neither existence or none existence "exists" there, but only potentials. I.e. it is so choatic you cannot even talk about existence and make sense of it.

One thing I think about in regard to this is the question of how people interact with reality, and God interacts with us, which seems to imply some kind of underlying potentiality or chaos in the sense of multiple unformed but potential futures. The bible states that God knows when creation as we now experience it will end, and indicates directly that he is aware of future events, e.g. prophecy etc. I think the overall Christian idea is that God is able to view all points of history, all outcomes and so on. On the other hand, at various points in the bible God reacts in real time. The example that comes to mind is God becoming angry with Moses shortly after appearing to him in the burning bush scene you are probably aware of. Moses, aged 80 at that point and having lived the last 40 years a peaceful rural life, is very reluctant to get involved in God's plan to free the Israelites from Egypt. God becomes irritated with him and agrees on some compromises, e.g. to send Moses' elder brother Aaron with him as a kind of spokesman, as apparently Aaron is the better speaker. It would appear after this that Moses was still reluctant to embrace his mission, e.g during his time as a shepherd after fleeing Egypt he had not been observing the Jewish custom, as established by God through Abraham, of circumcising his son(s), and set off for Egypt without correcting this. This seems to be what the issue is - the text isn't clear - and God becomes so angered by his lack of engagement that he wants to take Moses' life. His (non Jewish) wife intervenes by circumcising their son, in a dramatic act of solidarity with Moses and his God. As with many biblical passages it's a bit confusing at first reading. But, what I am getting at is, what is the underlying structure that allows God to be outside time, but also to be interacting with people in real time, and what is there (if anything) in the nature of time, as a dimension of the physical universe, that allows for choice and possible choice leading to outcomes that may be known, but may also be fluid. I'm hoping this makes sense - I've read some odds and ends about different theories that might have some bearing on this idea, and seem intuitively to fit, but not anything that expressly addresses this. Are there theories related to this idea that you are aware of?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, just asking for confirmation, or to see if there is an alternative view. Shortcut to doing research I don´t really have time for.

Here is a very readable account of current abiogenesis research projects, with a brief history of the topic:
The Secret of how Life on Earth Began.