Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
OK; so does this mean reinforcement learning is inapplicable to such contexts?I was referring only to reinforcement learning.
The examples you provided are of unsupervised learning where data is used to train the algorithm.
I've mentioned the case of Amazon's recruitment algorithm discriminated against hiring women as the data was biased; the same problems can arise in crime predictions where the higher percentage of arrest and incarceration rates for Australian indigenous people or African Americans can lead to algorithms using racial profiling.
Predictive policing algorithms are racist. They need to be dismantled. – MIT Technology Review
Ok .. so may I attempt to recap my understanding, (from what you've highlighted for us), as follows:AlphaZero {AZ} and Leela Chess Zero {LCZ} were trained with an inductive bias but their games are not human like as I can attest to after being slaughtered by Leela Chess Zero.
Maia {M} on the other hand was supervised trained using human games and not only plays like a human but makes all those blunders we humans are capable of making.
My understanding this is the case.OK; so does this mean reinforcement learning is inapplicable to such contexts?
Ok .. so may I attempt to recap my understanding, (from what you've highlighted for us), as follows:
i) AZ and LCZ were trained with an inductive bias, but their games are judged (by humans) to be 'not human-like';
ii) M was supervised trained and its games are judged (by humans) to be 'human like';
iii) Reinforcement learning, (AZ and LCZ), is argued as not involving human bias despite the incorporation of a reward system sub process;
iv) Conclusion is: Reinforcement learning is judged (by humans) as producing 'not human-like' performances, despite incorporation of any identified inductive biases;
OK, thanks.My understanding this is the case.
Since reinforcement learning is data less, in the case of crime prevention the algorithm would need to know the difference between right and wrong or the more subtle ethical dilemmas such as when killing is justified as self defense.
I don’t think reinforcement learning has reached this degree of sophistication.
The data input supervised and unsupervised learning processes bypass such issues and as seen in this thread leads to other problems.
The process being the execution of some code that humans devised?...It states categorically there was no human involvement in the self training process.....
Humans may have written the code but they didn't control the output.The process being the execution of some code that humans devised?
I dunno. I detect fingerprints all over the process.
Sure, the process goes places the humans couldnt forsee, as do many contraptions we invent. But humans made the darn process, so they cant just wash their hands of the whole thing.
The logic, represented by the code, is a very human thinking brain attribute/style.Humans may have written the code but they didn't control the output.
The program;
for x=1 to 100
y=rnd(1)
print y
next
Randomly prints out 100 numbers between 0 and 1 which the programmer has no control over.
Similarly at the start of training AlphaZero and Leela Chess Zero were random move generators which taught itself the game through self playing without any human involvement unlike supervised learning.
It simply serves to illustrate the programmer has no control on the output which is purely random like in reinforced learning.The logic, represented by the code, is a very human thinking brain attribute/style.
(I'm not yet sure about what implications this has, as far as 'bias' in AZ's and LCZ's learning style though ..?)
Yes I understand that. But the code that executed all of it was devised by humans, for a purpose desired by humans. So to say there was "no human involvement in the self training process" just gives a fantastical impression of whats going on.Humans may have written the code but they didn't control the output.
The program;
for x=1 to 100
y=rnd(1)
print y
next
Randomly prints out 100 numbers between 0 and 1 which the programmer has no control over.
Similarly at the start of training AlphaZero and Leela Chess Zero were random move generators which taught itself the game through self playing without any human involvement unlike supervised learning.
While humans designed and built the process the objective of reinforced learning is no human involvement as humans do not provide the data for learning, the program trains itself instead.Yes I understand that. But the code that executed all of it was devised by humans, for a purpose desired by humans. So to say there was "no human involvement in the self training process" just gives a fantastical impression of whats going on.
Desired the process, designed the process, built the process. That there is human involvement. All the humans didnt do was execute the process.
Ok .. I agree.It simply serves to illustrate the programmer has no control on the output which is purely random like in reinforced learning.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.Ok .. I agree.
I've gotta admit though, this one's got me scratching my head .. I'm not sure sure what to make of what's going on there.
I mean, its a demonstration of what happens when a free-wheeling, computer based learning process, 'driven' by pure logic, (meaning the code), is rigorously applied to a constrained set of rules, (meaning Chess), with a singular purpose (meaning to win). The surprise there, is that the end result ends up being not human-like.
Maybe its an example of how we would end up if we ever actually followed our own rules of rational (formal) logic and if we actually abandoned being driven by our own past experiences/'intuitions'?
Thanks for that ..
Well there ya go .. I'll have to conclude that mathematicians and Chess players have obviously let the more important brain centres shrivel .. and let the less important ones, become hideously bloated!(?)sjastro said:I recall a documentary a few years ago where du Sautoy an excellent chess player was pitted against a grandmaster (I don't recall his name) in an experiment to show grandmasters had a biological disposition to playing superior chess.
The experiment was to measure the gamma wave activity of each player.
It was found the gamma wave activity for the grandmaster was more in their frontal and parietal cortices where as for Sautoy it was in the medial temporal lobe.
It probably explains why the grandmaster destroyed du Sautoy since the frontal and parietal cortices of the brain are better at processing problems than the medial temporal lobe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?