Reply to post: Re: Hype

DeepMind says it's given AI an imagination. Let's take a closer look at that

GrapeBunch

Re: Hype

[...] "A human player, thus, would be well advised to plan moves ahead of time. The DeepMind agent, because it's capable of such planning too, is also well suited for this game, the researchers suggest."

That applies to Chess, or Go too. No creativity or AI needed.

Both "creativity" and "AI" are buzzwords. Marcel Duchamp, who must be considered one of the most creative of artists (otherwise what would his fame rest upon, technique?), gave up Art for over a decade and devoted himself to Chess, where he became good enough to represent France at the Chess Olympics, but never quite good enough to break into the world top-50. Duchamp wrote that chess players were the greater artists because they relied on the ultimate truth of their creation, whereas Artists, to be successful, had to curry favour among potential sponsors, sometimes devoting more ~creative~ juices to PR than to their Art.

Back in the days when computers were slow, Artificial Intelligence, which in those days was mainly trying to mimic the ways a human brain works, was thought by many (who I guess thereby became "AI exponents") to be the most productive way forward. Instead it was faster processors, multiple processors and eventually parallel processing, combined with extensive databases of both openings and endgames ("tablebases"), and even more with computer-friendly techniques for pruning the result trees, that made computers the strongest practical (under tournament conditions, where a game takes 5 hours or less to complete) players. So with the strongest players all computers, aspiring chess players in 2017 study the games played between them, right? No, they still study the games between the top human players, all of whom use computers for their preparation, but not during the game (that would be Cheating). Commentators frequently insert a computer-generated variation (often as in "you won't believe what the computer suggested ..."), but elucidation of a computer versus computer game is still exceeding rare. Why? Perhaps human games are more understandable. Perhaps they are more ~creative~.

Creativity, in the sense of "imagining and making real what is not", unfortunately is not always that different from plain old lying, nor from fraught new lying.

I took it that the innovation was to look ahead in the training period. It's a bit like, were you training Tic-Tac-Toe, telling you student that after >Centre, your move should be >Corner, rather than let it lose a million virtual times exploring >Side. If in a complex game they came up with the exact same or even better result (result=game-playing engine) through that cycle-saving, that is a non-trivial result (result=evaluation of training technique). To me, anyway.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020