The labels "Grand Master", "Master", "average club player" apply to Chess, not Baduk; and the vertical dimension in the graph seems arbitrarily chosen.
The scaling is not exact but I think it conveys the basic facts correctly - by 2011/2012 there well Go programs that could play well better than the average club player.
>Schaeffer now finds it plausible that a
>computer will beat Go’s grand masters soon
I am curious if a program running on a energy limited device would be able to beat a high ranked chess grandmaster in a standard competition setting (by that I mean the same rules about time etc). My hunch is that the answer is still a resounding no.
Not only yes, but Chess engines have been getting better over time as well as new algorithmic advancements have been discovered. Such that a smartphone running a modern engine can beat a full fledged multi-core PC running an older engine.
Note that the Elo for the smartphone used in this example is estimated at about 3000 vs the 2851 of Magnus Carlsen.
My guess is it will be a few more decades, probably at least three, before we're able to do that.
the problem with Go is that there's little data and the game is more complex - but given the small sizes of the deepmind NNs if they generate billions of meaningful games, they could probably compress their model and require less searching thus less energy
That would be an interesting matchup. I bet a grandmaster could play slow enough to kill the battery on the phone. A human could go a day without eating no problem. There's no way the phone could go a day without charging while running 100% CPU.
 Don't try this at home.
Speculative move generation of a chess engine on opponent time is a huge part of the overall strength especially when the engine can see a forced move therby collapsing the tree.
I would think a smart phone consumes less power than the brain (more so if you can turn off the display appropriately). I could be wrong though. BTW does all of the komodo logic reside on the client side or some of it executes on the off-client backend ?
This question must have arisen within Google (and Facebook). Certainly IBM will tell you (under duress) that neither chess nor Watson were the game changers they had hoped, at least commercially.
If you're Larry Page, what do you do with DeepMind now?
Specifically, you code it to engage and waste the time of the people on the other side of those scams to waste their time with false positives that they believe to have been hooked by the system. The scammers are working too and everything depends on ROI. If they are having to invest more and more time the returns stop being worth it.
If you can teach an AI to do that, you can fix one of the web's biggest nuisances.
I wonder what the effort would be to take an existing turing test bot and apply it to my spam folder.
Of course once this technique is used the spammers will be forced to deploy their own AIs to deal with the increase in response rates. Which of course this act will come to be called our first AI War. :P
Starcraft like 3d worlds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5ZtPazvF0&feature=youtu.be...
Imagination and the hippocampus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X-NdPtFKq0&feature=youtu.be...
And longer term he's said he'd like to use AI for science research like going through CERN's petabytes of data looking for new physics.
Not sure about "high profile" but there are a lot of other abstract strategy games out there, which might be candidates:
But what a lot of people seem to be talking about is AI vs human in something like Starcraft. My personal hope is that researchers working on this kind of video game playing AI will use an Open Source game though, so it will be easier for others to follow along, participate, etc.
If you're Larry Page, what do you do with DeepMind now?
Good question, because it's hard to know exactly how well this generalizes to other domain(s). That would probably be one of the first questions I'd start looking into.
I think that is a quite interesting challenge, but high profile? too few people know that game.
Also, measuring that the computer is better will be problematic, as humans (or, for that matter, computers) could conspire to let one of their own ilk win.
AlphaGo wouldn't fit in this mould, as it has been taught how to win at Go rather than working it out from the basic rules, so AI hasn't 'beaten' Go fully, but AlphaGo is a great achievement nonetheless.
I just hope that somebody will try their hand at writing software around the engine that dumbs down their play in a "human way", to make beginners and intermediate players benefit also, I wonder if due to the way it works it is possible to do this better than in chess where it doesn't seem engines that play "convincing human strong amateur" play really exist yet
All of the difficulty in finding regular matches is what prompted him to move to Japan and become an 'apprentice' (apologies if this isn't the correct terminology). He eventually became extremely proficient and is a 9-dan player now.
One wonders how good he might have become if he had access to the internet to play against other strong players from a young age. One further wonders how good he might have become if he could play against an AI of Alphago's capability.
With the game of Go, two players with drastic different abilities can still play together with the handicap system. The weaker players would get more stones already placed on the board at the beginning. This means if AlphaGo is 9dan professional level, it can give several handicap to advanced amateur players and still make it fun.
Also, there are lots of weaker Go AI that beginners and intermediate players can play against already.
Betteridge's law of headlines is intended as a humorous adage rather than always being literally true.
Some things are not as simple as playing out every possible solution and picking the optimal one. Art and humor, for example. It takes intelligence to operate and judge subjectively, not compute power.
The AI Google created uses a combination of different learning algorithms (supervising it by teaching known Go patterns and playing it against itself millions of times to learn new strategies).
Checkers is a solved game. There is a best move for each play and we just needed to build/process that giant decision tree. Go was a completely different beast, so it's pretty significant we found an algorithm that can beat a world class player.
That's the point. The branching factor of go is so high that with the current trend in hardware improvements it is impossible to play out every single solution.