Maybe it's not all it's cracked up to be?
Upon the machine suffering it's first defeat, or more correctly, Mr Lee Sedol winning a game the BBC news report included the following :
"Google representatives said the defeat was "very valuable" for AlphaGo, as it identified a problem which they could now try to fix."
That sounds to me much more like human programming than genuine machine learning otherwise why would the google guys need to be involved in a fix,ie upgrade.?
Also, whilst there may be a huge number of possible moves , to the power of 170, does it really matter that much where the second , or third, stone is placed? Does this, realistically, not reduce the "potential" moves by a massive amount?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
