[ExI] alpha zero

[John Clark]

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Dylan Distasio <interzone at gmail.com> wrote:


> ​> ​
> This type of program still needs to be trained on a very specific problem,
>

​It trained itself and it started with nothing but the basic rules and was
able to beat the best in the world at it, human or machine, in one day
.
 And it didn't just do it with one problem it ​did it with 3 different
ones, Chess being the least complex.

​> ​
> there is no thought process going on behind it.
>

​That is a strange statement. ​

​If you can teach yourself to be the best in the world at some complex task
​without "thought" then what's the point of "thought"? Who needs it?

​> ​
> It's quite startling at first glance to think that an end goal of
> minimizing a loss function can generate so much razzle dazzle, but the math
> behind these systems is actually not that complex.
>

​But we know for a fact that the ​
recipe for a mind
​ can't be very big, we must have that master learning algorithm so we can
put a upper limit on it.​
In the  human genome there are only 3 billion base pairs,
​ ​
there are 4 bases so each base can represent 2 bits, there are 8 bits per
byte so that comes out to 750 meg.   And all that 750 meg certainly can not
​ ​
be used just for the master learning software algorithm, you've got to
leave room for instructions on how to build a human body as well as the
brain hardware.  So the information
​ ​must
 contain wiring directions such as "wire up
​ ​
a neuron this way and then repeat that
​ ​
procedure exactly the same way
​ ​
42
​ ​
billion times".
​ ​
And the 750 meg isn't even efficiently coded, there is a ridiculous amount
of redundancy in the human genome.
​ ​
I would guess
​ ​
the
​ ​
master
​ ​
learning algorithm is less than a meg in size, possibly a lot less.

​ John K Clark​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20171207/ad6cb7ea/attachment.html>