A couple years later, it’s still bogus, and the hype tsunami has climbed even higher. Probably nothing I could have done would have punctured the bubble, but I regret not trying.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Meaningness
I'd be curious to see your debunking or at least a quick summary?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @shlevy
They showed that brute force works on another board game. That’s all.
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @shlevy
how cleverly do you have to go about applying force before it ceases to be brute?
3 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman @shlevy
42.73. (I don’t know what you are asking?)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @admittedlyhuman
Was AlphaGo's success solely a function of compute resources/time or were those resources used especially well?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @shlevy @admittedlyhuman
Isn’t the supposedly exciting thing about AlphaZero (and, to a lesser extent AlphaGo) that they *don’t* rely on human cleverness?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @admittedlyhuman
No one's expecting cleverness to be unnecessary to *build* the thing...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @shlevy @admittedlyhuman
If AlphaGo were presented as an incremental engineering result in function approximation methods, no one would have been interested. The hype is that it’s a breakthrough in modeling human intuition.
5 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
The breakthrough isn't that it's modeling *human* intuition, but that we're seeing AI intuition (speaking loosely) become much more capable, w/ less specification of domain details from humans I'd like to see a full critique. I don't think many AI researchers share your view
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I’m tempted (as I said) but that would be a LOT of work!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.