So Alpha Zero was a hoax?

[Milos]

You are spouting baseless claims but what is new. I'm not sure why your are not simply stating that they faked all their games, which would be easy enough to do.

Why would I state something that is highly improbable?
Are you capable of having an argument that is not straw-man?
They simply intentionally presented results in the way (false one) that would give them best PR impact, because they were not writing a scientific paper but an advertising leaflet for the power of their TPU cloud which they shortly after offered as a service. The PR is quite perfidious and is targeting scientific community already working with NN. Therefore, all those theatrics with that quasi scientific preprint ("leaking" it during London classics to get a lot of feedback from GMs, press coverage, etc, etc).

It is not easy at all to throw massively parallel hardware at a task. Alpha-beta does not seem to scale at all beyond 64 threads, to give just one example.

Another straw-man. Scaling of alpha-beta or MCTS is totally irrelevant for the argument about training time when using reinforcement learning.
Self-playing games scale perfectly no matter what kind of hardware or chess program you use. If you can run 10 games per minute on a single machine you will be able to run 100 games per minute on 10 machines, no matter if you are running self-playing A0, SF or some nameless random-mover engine that doesn't even perform search.
This is such a trivial thing that it is simply impossible that you don't understand it. You seem to be just playing dumb for the sake of trolling.

[syzygy]

You are spouting baseless claims but what is new. I'm not sure why your are not simply stating that they faked all their games, which would be easy enough to do.

Why would I state something that is highly improbable?
Are you capable of having an argument that is not straw-man?

So tell me what is a strawman about my suggestion that your claims are baseless?

They simply intentionally presented results in the way (false one) that would give them best PR impact, because they were not writing a scientific paper but an advertising leaflet for the power of their TPU cloud which they shortly after offered as a service.

That's based on nothing. So you have no case.

[Milos]

You are spouting baseless claims but what is new. I'm not sure why your are not simply stating that they faked all their games, which would be easy enough to do.

Why would I state something that is highly improbable?
Are you capable of having an argument that is not straw-man?

So tell me what is a strawman about my suggestion that your claims are baseless?

Straw-man is that you are trying to equalise false presenting of training time or cherry picking of results with faking games. In essence you are trying to banalise the argument.

They simply intentionally presented results in the way (false one) that would give them best PR impact, because they were not writing a scientific paper but an advertising leaflet for the power of their TPU cloud which they shortly after offered as a service.

That's based on nothing. So you have no case.

It is called circumstantial evidence. Nothing published by Google regarding A0 in that quasi scientific preprint is actually verifiable (plus there are things which are provable to be outright wrong - like scaling of SF strength with time per move in Figure 2).
That paper is clearly not scientific and is subpar to papers normally published in renowned journals or to actual Go papers published by Google.

[jhellis3]

They are all different forms of lying. So your claim is Google is lying, but the lying liars still have enough integrity not to completely lie (fake games)?

[Milos]

They are all different forms of lying. So your claim is Google is lying, but the lying liars still have enough integrity not to completely lie (fake games)?

So if someone advertises a product, e.g. a hand soap and says it removes 99.9% of bacteria and in reality in only removes 95% is that the same as if someone is advertising a hand soap that is actually a dishwashing liquid?
Which one could you sue and gain compensation?
No matter how you wrap it, it is textbook example of straw-man.

[jhellis3]

So if someone advertises a product, e.g. a hand soap and says it removes 99.9% of bacteria and in reality in only removes 95% is that the same as if someone is advertising a hand soap that is actually a dishwashing liquid?

I thought you didn't like strawmans?

[Milos]

So if someone advertises a product, e.g. a hand soap and says it removes 99.9% of bacteria and in reality in only removes 95% is that the same as if someone is advertising a hand soap that is actually a dishwashing liquid?

I thought you didn't like strawmans?

Nice of you to actually acknowledge Ronald's argument was a straw-man .

[jhellis3]

I did not.

I acknowledged you believe it was. That is not an equivalent statement.

This means your previous post is a lie. I guess you lost the moral high ground on Google.

RIP.

[syzygy]

So if someone advertises a product, e.g. a hand soap and says it removes 99.9% of bacteria and in reality in only removes 95% is that the same as if someone is advertising a hand soap that is actually a dishwashing liquid?

I thought you didn't like strawmans?

Nice of you to actually acknowledge Ronald's argument was a straw-man .

The statement that I don't know why you are not simply stating that DeepMind faked all their games was neither presented nor intended as an argument. My real point was that your claims are baseless. Also that was more a trivially true observation than an argument.

[Milos]

I did not.

I acknowledged you believe it was. That is not an equivalent statement.

This means your previous post is a lie. I guess you lost the moral high ground on Google.

RIP.

Opinion is like a butt, everyone has it, even you .
That doesn't mean that opinion is correct. And in your case is much more often wrong than it isn't .

P.S. RIP is a pretty sick greeting, probably even against charter, but I don't mind it to stand as an evidence to your moral standards.