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

[In situ]

I suspect that In situ only brought [the tornado] into the discussion out of a sense of irony.

Partly only. I brought it up because I wanted to highlight the facts creationist deny evolution and that both AlphaZero and evolution uses processes which at a first glance seems to relay on randomness and therefore leads our intuition to conclude it cannot be the reason behind why they work.

Since the reasons for the diversity of life are not obvious or even trivial many people have difficulties in accepting biological evolution as being only a natural process mindlessly designing things, i.e. the belief in theistic evolution, or difficulties accepting it only being determined by the laws of nature, i.e. the belief in creationism. As such, AlhpaZero can be seen as an example for the mind to accept the idea that a process can mindlessly design things only determined by the laws of the word, even though the details are not understood how it is done, hence the tornado.

Imo, nobody has addressed the question in my OP yet, instead I have been explaining first principles to people. Such as:

1. any world that are to make sense needs rules to tell how the world works
2. how the world works and how to act in the world are different things
3. how to act in the world is determined by the rules of the world

I guess I have to blame myself for this by badly wording my question in the OP and being unclear. So let try again:

Previous chess engines been told all things above by humans, but AlphaZero is a process which only been told how the world works, i.e the "natural laws" of the world it exists in. Based on the rules of the world AlphaZero started to discover how to act in the world in order to win, i.e. with no guidance AlphaZero has discovered rules for how to act in the world. You can say that AlphaZero all by itself have designed rules for how to survive in a world determined by the laws of chess.

As an analogue, the evolutionary process correspond to AlphaZero's discovery process. Living beings are evolved by evolution to survive and reproduce, i.e. "win", under the rules governing our reality. Therefore living beings directly corresponds to the winning rules AlphaZero has discovered. The rules of chess correspond to the Laws of Nature and are, and must be, given as a priori knowledge in both cases.

Therefore I see no principal difference between how evolution operates v.s. how AlphaZero operates. Yet Creationist claims there is a distinction. Therefore; what distinction does a creationist make between AlphaZero v.s. evolution?

And as already pointed out; it cannot be the junkyard tornado nor can the distinction be explained by an intelligent designer because then a creationist falls back to theistic evolution as the explanation for evolution. So what is it then?

 

[In situ]

Machines do it by grinding data even down obviously blind alleys.

This is an unfair description on how AlphaZero plays chess. It can be intuitively understood by pointing out that Alpha Zero examines 70 thousand moves per second while Stockfish examines 80 million, yet in a 100 games encounter where both has 1 minutes thinking time, AlphaZero beats Stockfish with 27-0 and makes Stockfish - one of the best chess engines in the world - look like an amateur player.

According to chess analysts, AlphaZero's chess play shows it understands tactics and it evaluates the moves more like a human than a machine. Unlike ordinary machines, AlphaZero skips irrelevant moves and focus on what is relevant. I.e. AlphaZero "crunches", or rather process, the moves in a similar way a human brain process them.

 

[durangodawood]

...i.e. with no guidance AlphaZero has discovered rules for how to act in the world....

Thats incorrect.

The designers of AZ formulated an algorithm for discovery of how the world (the world of winning chess) works, which AZ simply followed. I would call that complete guidance.

 

[In situ]

AlphaZero was told that there was a game by it's Creators, and it was told what constituted 'winning'. It was given feedback to know that it had won or lost. If it hadn't been given that feedback, it wouldn't have known how to improve.

Evolution been "told" the same things. The rules are call the laws of nature. The game played is Life and the feedback is death and birth. Please read post #81 which goes into depth about how AlphaZero and evolution is related to each other.

 

[Speedwell]

And as already pointed out; it cannot be the junkyard tornado nor can the distinction be explained by an intelligent designer because then a creationist falls back to theistic evolution as the explanation for evolution. So what is it then?

I'm not quite sure of what your point is here, but since you may well think of me as a 'theistic evolutionist' I must say that I see no important distinction, nor any need for one.

 

[In situ]

Thats incorrect.

If you think so, then I would suggest you think deeper about this and then explain to me why it is incorrect, because right now your criticism does not hold any water.

The designers of AZ formulated an algorithm for discovery of how the world ... works

How a world works is not discovered since they are inherent causes in the world itself to describe what possible can happen in the world. What you do discover is what happens, i.e. the effects not the causes. Rules must be given as domain knowledge, i.e. the rules are a priori knowledge otherwise the world lacks meaning.

The purpose of the given algorithm is to enforced the rules of chess in the mini world which AlphaZero exists in, i.e. the algorithm corresponds to acting out, or correlates to, causes in our reality. AlphaZero observes the effects in the world supervised by the rules of chess, not the causes. If you believe in theistic evolution you could says the algorithm corresponds to "God's will" in the world.

of how the world ... works, which AZ simply followed. I would call that complete guidance.

You, and I see this with many others, conflate to different concepts with each other:

There is a difference in how the world works, i.e. the rules, and how to act in the world. Rules must be given as domain knowledge to describe how the world work, otherwise you end up with utter chaos only. In turn the rules then decide how to act in the world. What AlphaZero discovered was how to act in the world, i.e. how to win, or survive if you so like. There was no human involved in guiding AlphaZero on how to discover how to act in the world. This is something AlphaZero discovered all by itself by observing the effects of its own (random) actions.

Please read post #81 for further clarifications.

 

[In situ]

I'm not quite sure of what your point is here, but since you may well think of me as a 'theistic evolutionist' I must say that I see no important distinction, nor any need for one.

I agree, for theistic evolution there exists no distinction, but it must exist one for a creationist. Please read post #81 for a clarification.

 

[In situ]

I don't think any robots are recognisably conscious as we generally think of consciousness

I more or less agree with everything you wrote. When it comes to Boston Dynamics, watching their robots acting gives me an eerie feeling of "something is inside"... and it is, they got a virtual reality inside themselves which maps onto the external world. The purpose of this virtual reality is not to command the body how to act in the the real world, but to suggest how to act based on what it observes. And knowing that makes you start wondering and that is when the eerie feeling is felt...

 

[In situ]

AlphaZero has a built in 'telos' and a built in method to achieve it.

This is a good objection but it is not obvious this is the case for me. Do you have any argument to support the claim AlpahZero has some sort of a goal built into itself?

 

[durangodawood]

Do you have any argument to support the claim AlpahZero has some sort of a goal built into itself?

Sorry, I assumed AZ was intended by its builders to learn and play chess.

Are you saying this came about by accident? Or...?

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry, I assumed AZ was intended by its builders to learn and play chess.

Are you saying this came about by accident? Or...?

Just focus on the process itself, how it works and how it is similar to the random variation and selection of evolution. The creationist claim which is under consideration here is that such processes can't work, not who is responsible for creating them.

 

[In situ]

So in program code, repeatable pseudorandom numbers are generated algorithmically from arbitrary numerical seeds (e.g. the time between user inputs)

As a side note. There exists devices which generates true random number series. These numbers are generated by utilizing radioactive decays and are fairly easy to built into the electronics of a computer.

 

[In situ]

Sorry, I assumed AZ was intended by its builders to learn and play chess.

Are you saying this came about by accident? Or...?

Are you saying an apple falls to the ground because of telos? If not, then I cannot yet see in what respect you think there is telos in AlphaZero.

 

[In situ]

Just focus on the process itself, how it works and how it is similar to the random variation and selection of evolution. The creationist claim which is under consideration here is that such processes can't work, not who is responsible for creating them.

What seams to be propose is theistic evolution, and this is a correct observation. AlphaZero lives in a telos world because there exists a purpose with the rule, namely to teach AlphaZero to play chess. This purpose was added by humans. When we know there is a designer involved then we are justified to say there is telos involved. But I already addressed theistic evolution as irrelevant in the OP and in post #81.

Anyway, thanks for helping steering the discussion in the right direction.

 

[durangodawood]

Are you saying an apple falls to the ground because of telos? If not, then I cannot yet see in what respect you think there is telos in AlphaZero.

Why did AZ tackle chess at all?

 

[In situ]

Why did AZ tackle chess at all?

Please reread the OP. I already stated telos in that form is irrelevant .

 

[In situ]

If it's not intelligent design, then you tell me what accounts for the difference between the two programs.

While it is my personal belief an intelligent designer does not exist, I would find myself in deep water if I claim an intelligent designer did not exists. The existence of such entity responsible for the natural laws cannot be disproved nor proven.

My question is more modest, I am asking what distinction should be made between Evolution and AlphaZero from a creationistic perspective. Since AlphaZero and evolution work on the same principles (see post #81 for clarification) then the creationistic perspective should be able to point at a distinction between AlphaZero and evolution. As explained in the OP, the distinction cannot be an intelligent designer from the creationists perspective, since this will default back to the middle ground of theistic evolution.

As someone noted earlier, if you're trying to make some point for atheistic evolution, you're undercutting your own position.

No, I am not. It would be obviously silly of me to do that with this particular case.

Btw, why you need to call it "atheist" evolution is beyond my understanding since it is common among atheist to believes in some kind of "force" or "purpose of life" which they don't associate with a deity but yet believe can affect life. Not to mention the atheist which rejects the theory. The proper thing to call it here would be "naturalistic evolution".

 

[Chesterton]

While it is my personal belief an intelligent designer does not exist, I would find myself in deep water if I claim an intelligent designer did not exists. The existence of such entity responsible for the natural laws cannot be disproved nor proven.

My question is more modest, I am asking what distinction should be made between Evolution and AlphaZero from a creationistic perspective. Since AlphaZero and evolution work on the same principles (see post #81 for clarification) then the creationistic perspective should be able to point at a distinction between AlphaZero and evolution. As explained in the OP, the distinction cannot be an intelligent designer from the creationists perspective, since this will default back to the middle ground of theistic evolution.

I can't speak for creationists, except to say that even if they work on the same principles, the origin is important. AlphaZero could not and would not happen naturally, so therefore I'd argue that neither can DNA and consciousness and all the biological stuff.

No, I am not. It would be obviously silly of me to do that with this particular case.

Btw, why you need to call it "atheist" evolution is beyond my understanding since it is common among atheist to believes in some kind of "force" or "purpose of life" which they don't associate with a deity but yet believe can affect life. Not to mention the atheist which rejects the theory. The proper thing to call it here would be "naturalistic evolution".

I just called it that to distinguish it from theistic evolution, which I think would make a difference for what's being discussed in this thread.

 

[In situ]

My understanding is that "random" is a misnomer. It's a term of art in computer programming. Yes, it certainly can appear unpredictable, and look random to humans, but so can falling snowflakes. I would need to be convinced that electricity can do anything other than follow the laws of physics..

You refer to physic to denounce randomness, yet the very same discipline refutes your own claim. The idea that physics is deterministic, which is basically what you propose here, died within physics about ~100 years ago.

 

[Chesterton]

Then how can algorithms determine how to win a chess game? On that level, they are deterministic.