Twitter cuts (#53)

(Here‘s the HN thread.)

ADDED: “… the Google subsidiary’s AlphaGo program is far from its only project — it’s not even the main one. As co-founder Demis Hassabis said earlier in the week, DeepMind wants to ‘solve intelligence,’ and he has more than a few ideas about how to get there. …”

March 11, 2016admin 13 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

13 Responses to this entry

  • grey enlightenment Says:

    how did it get so many retweets

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 11th, 2016 at 8:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Johan Schmidt Says:

    I’ve tried Go before. If “surprising, baffling moves” are the key to success I think I’ll wreck that stupid bag of bolts.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 11th, 2016 at 10:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    Seems like AlphaGo played improved version of Lee against himself, showing him how he can improve his game. 3rd game will be played on 12 March .

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 12th, 2016 at 3:57 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    as Lee almost lost 3rd game by now. Yudkowsky posted his analisys on FB
    https://m.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154018209759228

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 12th, 2016 at 10:37 am Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    go always reminded me of the hesse glass bead game probably where he got the idea so it would be fitting if it actually leads to an illuminatti
    i play the smart go app on my iphone kicks my ass every time lol but i never had any training
    ive read there are as many possible go games as molecules or atoms in the universe or something along those lines doesnt seem possible but its certainly a game even more than chess made for a computer brain.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    No, there are 100 orders of magnitude more possible go games than elementary particles in the universe.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    i think its also true that theres a couple dozen levels of players and a non east asian has never come within several levels of the top, did white guys build this computer? LOL

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 12th, 2016 at 12:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    so In reading the FB post i came across the phrase i never saw before but grokked ‘edge instantiation’ and the ratchet sprang to mind, there was a post about it a few months or longer ago and I said I thought it might be that its inevitable because its the only direction to go , i meant that on at least two levels the obvious one is bright young things looking to make their mark cant make much of a mark supporting the already organized. but also on the level of entropy an organized optimized [right] state is by definition internally pressurized both by changing forces within it needs to adjust for but more so the chaos or vacuum without by which i mean a right state is not a natural state its a construct out of disorder and wants to go back to disorder thus left ratchet or edge instantiation of leftism at the commencement of order because time and space and possible chaotic alternatives are all on lefts side.while only one ideal state in one place and time are on rights side.and that initial condition is never actually more than approximated thus chaos happens

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    I think those concepts (edge instantiation and patch resistant problem) just calling to be used to construct some valid critique of neocameralism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 12th, 2016 at 1:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQuI3onaW3Y

    have to have this up for this

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 12th, 2016 at 1:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    comparission of chess and go from D&G A Thousand Plateaus 363

    Let us take chess and Go, from the standpoint of the game pieces, the relations between the pieces and the space involved. Chess is a game of State, or of the court: the emperor of China played it. Chess pieces are coded; they have an internal nature and intrinsic properties from which their movements, situations, and confrontations derive. They have qualities; a knight remains a knight, a pawn a pawn, a bishop a bishop. Each is like a subject of the statement endowed with a relative power, and these relative powers combine in a subject of enunciation, that is, the chess player or the game’s form of interiority.

    Go pieces, in contrast, are pellets, disks, simple arithmetic units, and have only an anonymous, collective, or third-person function: “It” makes a move. “It” could be a man, a woman, a louse, an elephant. Go pieces are elements of a nonsubjectified machine assemblage with no intrinsic properties, only situational ones. Thus the relations are very different in the two cases. Within their milieu of interiority, chess pieces entertain biunivocal relations with one another, and with the adversary’s pieces: their functioning is structural. On the other hand, a Go piece has only a milieu of exteriority, or extrinsic relations with nebulas or constellations, according to which it fulfills functions of insertion or situation, such as bordering, encircling, shattering. All by itself, a Go piece can destroy an entire constellation synchronically; a chess piece cannot (or can do so diachronically only).

    Chess is indeed a war, but an institutionalized, regulated, coded war, with a front, a rear, battles. But what is proper to Go is war without battle lines, with neither confrontation nor retreat, without battles even: pure strategy, whereas chess is a semiology. Finally, the space is not at all the same: in chess, it is a question of arranging a closed space for oneself, thus of going from one point to another, of occupying the maximum number of squares with the minimum number of pieces. In Go, it is a question of arraying oneself in an open space, of holding space, of maintaining the possibility of springing up at any point: the movement is not from one point to another, but becomes perpetual, without aim or destination, without departure or arrival. The “smooth” space of Go, as against the “striated” space of chess. The nomos of Go against the State of chess, nomos against polis.

    The difference is that chess codes and decodes space, whereas Go proceeds altogether differently, territorializing or deterritorializing it (make the outside a territory in space; consolidate that territory by the construction of a second, adjacent territory; deterritorialize the enemy by shattering his territory from within; deterritorialize oneself by renouncing, by going elsewhere…). Another justice, another movement, another space-time.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 13th, 2016 at 4:18 am Reply | Quote
  • vimothy Says:

    The HN comment is certainly excited. I don’t see what’s exciting or scary about it, though, unless it’s the prospect that the most computer literate parts of our society have confused the mechanical ability to perform computations quickly with sentience.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 13th, 2016 at 10:24 am Reply | Quote
  • MarriedWorker Says:

    Whereas you seem to have confused sentience with danger. The truth is just the opposite. A complex sentient mind can have moral qualms. A powerful computational engine for complex problems, on the other hand, would take a well-intentioned instruction like “minimize human suffering” and figure out precisely what tailored virus would drive us extinct most painlessly without a single second thought.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 17th, 2016 at 4:02 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment