Milos wrote:But the argument that energy consumption will determine cost in the medium run is so ridiculous
If you have two solutions with similar output, but one of them needs massively more energy, then the latter one usually isn't competetive. Energy consumption is a strong indicator here.
Obviously, I'm assuming that there will be competition that will drive down the hardware cost of TPU-like architectures in the future, but that's what I also wrote in my previous posting. Of course, in that scenario, you are welcome to use a 1000 CPU cores instead of one TPU for a NN application. Guess which solution will be inferior - lo and behold, that happens to be the one with more energy consumption.
Graham Banks wrote:The only thing I question is that AlphaZero had an opening book based on learning over millions of games, whereas it looks as though Stockfish may not have used an opening book at all.
Graham Banks wrote:The only thing I question is that AlphaZero had an opening book based on learning over millions of games, whereas it looks as though Stockfish may not have used an opening book at all.
+1 I believe you are 100% correct!
I still think that calling the weights of the NN an "opening boook" is kinda misleading. It is not an opening book as you would think of one
Graham Banks wrote:The only thing I question is that AlphaZero had an opening book based on learning over millions of games, whereas it looks as though Stockfish may not have used an opening book at all.
+1 I believe you are 100% correct!
I still think that calling the weights of the NN an "opening boook" is kinda misleading. It is not an opening book as you would think of one
Why, when NN evaluation function is exactly what an opening book gives you - for a given position a probability of selecting each move and wining probability of that position? And the closer position to the root, the better tuned weights are for it.
Graham Banks wrote:The only thing I question is that AlphaZero had an opening book based on learning over millions of games, whereas it looks as though Stockfish may not have used an opening book at all.
Stockfish was fine out of the opening (in the 10 games at 1 min/move). AlphaZero also played 1200 games against SF from known opening positions and won with a score of 733 (see page 6 of the paper).
It is simple, and without doubt, machine can learn better than human. First step, machines can calculate better than human ( people already accept it). This is the next step of technological revolution ( machines can learn better than human).It would be a bitter experience for many programmers who spent signifiant years of their life to teach a machine(program a machine) rather than let the machine learn by his own.
It's been a long time since I have seen such BS posted on this board. Did IQ's suddenly drop while I was away?
It's clear to me that few posts on this thread are objective. Many posts are filled with insults, misinformation, and in some cases, out right lies. What the hell is wrong with you people?
I suggest you get a grip on reality!
Regards,
Forrest
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you.....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
Nay Lin Tun wrote:It is simple, and without doubt, machine can learn better than human. First step, machines can calculate better than human ( people already accept it). This is the next step of technological revolution ( machines can learn better than human).It would be a bitter experience for many programmers who spent significant years of their life to teach a machine(program a machine) rather than let the machine learn by his own.
That's EXACTLY what's sticking in their craw.
Of course, Google not giving more information gives them an opportunity to downplay the achievement of Alpha-Zero.
Nay Lin Tun wrote:It is simple, and without doubt, machine can learn better than human. First step, machines can calculate better than human ( people already accept it). This is the next step of technological revolution ( machines can learn better than human).It would be a bitter experience for many programmers who spent signifiant years of their life to teach a machine(program a machine) rather than let the machine learn by his own.
machine can learn only if humans teach it to learn.
The interesting question is how to learn and if humans can use the same methods of alpha zero to learn and improve in chess without reading chess books or looking at games.
Of course machines are faster so it is obvious that machines will do better but can humans learn not to get to the level of alphago but to get to a level when they beat big majority of humans by using Alpha Zero methods?
Would the conditions be right? A minimum of seriousness, please...