5 thoughts on “Go On

  1. Here Yudkowsky writes:

    So far as I can tell, if you look at everything that Robin Hanson said about distributed FOOM and everything I said about local FOOM in the Hanson-Yudkowsky FOOM debate, everything about AlphaGo worked out in a way that matches the “local” model of how things go. One company with a big insight jumped way ahead of everyone else. This is true even though, since the world wasn’t at stake this time, Deepmind actually published their recipe for the October version of their AI.
    … so far as I know, AlphaGo wasn’t built in collaboration with any of the commercial companies that built their own Go-playing programs for sale. The October architecture was simple and, so far as I know, incorporated very little in the way of all the particular tweaks that had built up the power of the best open-source Go programs of the time. Judging by the October architecture, after their big architectural insight, Deepmind mostly started over in the details (though they did reuse the widely known core insight of Monte Carlo Tree Search). Deepmind didn’t need to trade with any other Go companies or be part of an economy that traded polished cognitive modules, because Deepmind’s big insight let them leapfrog over all the detail work of their competitors.

    You seem to be very much on the Hanson side of the “Hanson-Yudkowsky FOOM debate”. Does this affect your view in any way?

    • I’m only on the Hanson side due to hardware materialism. It’s a Moravec position, before a Hanson one. Beyond that, I’m a FOOM-head (assuming that FOOM cannot be solely a software phenomenon, but is rather hyper-accelerated industrial revolution).

Leave a Reply