DOCSLIB.ORG

What Google's Winning Go Algorithm Will Do Next

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Google's Winning Go Algorithm Will Do Next NEWS IN FOCUS stimulation ultimately improved the athletes’ Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte brain stimulation. Some people do not respond jumping force by 70% and their coordination in Brazil, found similar increases in cyclists’ at all; others might respond only when stimu- by 80%, compared with the sham group, Halo performance when he stimulated the brain’s lated in a certain way. And even an individual’s announced in February. temporal cortex, which is involved in body response can differ from day to day. Edwards Troy Taylor, high-performance director for awareness and in automatic functions such as says that it is important to map these differences the USSA, is encouraged by the results — but breathing2. This suggests that the temporal and if tDCS is to be used therapeutically or for other concedes that they are preliminary. motor cortices are connected in ways that are purposes. “We’re moving toward customized not understood, or that tDCS does not target prescription of brain stimulation,” he says. PUSHING THE LIMITS OF ENDURANCE locations in the brain precisely, Okano says. Nonetheless, the use of tDCS in sports is Another study, presented on 7 March at the These results support the notion that the only likely to increase. Stimulating the motor Biomedical Basis of Elite Performance meeting brain manages exertion by collating feedback cortex, for instance, seems to increase dexter- in Nottingham, UK, suggests that tDCS may from the body and then slowing muscles to ity, so videogamers have been quick to take up reduce the perception of fatigue. Sports sci- prevent fatigue, says Dylan Edwards, a neuro- the technique. And it is increasingly easy to entist Lex Mauger of the University of Kent in physiologist at Burke Medical Research Institute acquire stimulation devices; Halo has begun to Canterbury, UK, and his colleagues found that in White Plains, New York3. “Even when you market its equipment for the express purpose of stimulating the motor-cortex region that con- think you’re exercising as hard as you can, there increasing athletic performance. trols leg function allows cyclists to pedal longer is always some reserve of ability,” he says. Taylor compares the use of brain stimulation without feeling tired. by athletes to eating carbohydrates ahead of an The researchers stimulated the brains of TRICKY TESTS athletic event, in the hopes of boosting endur- 12 untrained volunteers before directing the But Horvath cautions that little is known about ance. “It piggybacks on the ability to learn,” he athletes to pedal stationary bicycles until they the long-term effects of stimulating the brain. says. “It’s not introducing something artificial were exhausted. Every minute, they asked the And others are sceptical of the technique’s into the body.” cyclists to rate their level of effort. potential to increase performance. Vincent But Edwards worries that the availability of Volunteers who received tDCS were able to Walsh, a neuroscientist at University College tDCS devices will tempt athletes to try “brain pedal two minutes longer, on average, than were London, notes that the methods used in tDCS doping”, in part because there is no way to detect those who were given a sham treatment. They studies often differ between research groups — its use. “If this is real,” he says, “then absolutely also rated themselves as less tired. But there was and might not always be optimized. the Olympics should be concerned about it.” ■ no difference in heart rate or the lactate level in For instance, the fairly intense amount of 1. Cogiamanian, F. et al. Eur. J. Neurosci. 26, 242–249 the muscles between the treatment and control electricity that Mauger’s team used has been (2007). groups. This suggests that changes in brain per- shown to sometimes have complex and unin- 2. Okano, A. H. et al. Br. J. Sports Med. 49, 1213–1218 4 (2015). ception, rather than muscle pain or other body tended effects on the brain’s activity . 3. Noakes, T. D. Sports Med. 37, 374–377 (2007). feedback, drove the improved performance. Replicating such experiments is difficult 4. Batsikadze, G., Moliadze, V., Paulus, W., Kuo, M.-F. & Alexandre Okano, a biological engineer at because of variations in how people respond to Nitsche, M. A. J. Physiol. 591, 1987–2000 (2013). ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE What Google’s winning Go algorithm will do next AlphaGo’s techniques could have broad uses, but moving beyond games is a challenge. BY ELIZABETH GIBNEY which was mainly learned, with a few ele- mastered draughts in 2007: “I expected them ments crafted specifically for the game — to use more computational resources and do a ollowing the defeat of one of its finest could be applied to problems that involve lot more learning, but I still didn’t expect to see human players, the ancient game of Go pattern recognition, decision-making and this amazing level of performance.” has joined the growing list of tasks at planning. But the approach is also limited. The improvement was largely down to the Fwhich computers perform better than humans. “It’s really impressive, but at the same time, fact that the more AlphaGo plays, the better it In a 6-day tournament in Seoul, watched by a there are still a lot of challenges,” says Yoshua gets, says Miles Brundage, a social scientist at reported 100 million people around the world, Bengio, a computer scientist at the University Arizona State University in Tempe, who stud- the computer algorithm AlphaGo, created by of Montreal in Canada. ies trends in AI. AlphaGo uses a brain-inspired the Google-owned company DeepMind, beat Lee, who had predicted that he would win architecture known as a neural network, in Go professional Lee Sedol by 4 games to 1. The the Google tournament in a landslide, was which connections between layers of simulated complexity and intuitive nature of the ancient shocked by his loss. In October, AlphaGo beat neurons strengthen on the basis of experience. board game had established Go as one the European champion Fan Hui. But the version It learned by first studying 30 million Go posi- greatest challenges in artificial intelligence of the program that won in Seoul is signifi- tions from human games and then improv- (AI). Now the big question is what the Deep- cantly stronger, says Jonathan Schaeffer, a com- ing by playing itself over and over again, a Mind team will turn to next. puter scientist at the University of Alberta in technique known as reinforcement learning. AlphaGo’s general-purpose approach — Edmonton, Canada, whose Chinook software Then, DeepMind combined AlphaGo’s ability 284 | NATURE | VOL 531 | 17 MARCH 2016 © 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved KIM HONG-JI/TPX/REUTERS Professional Go player Lee Sedol (centre) after his 4–1 defeat by Google’s AlphaGo algorithm. to recognize successful board configurations might never beat the best human. But it’s an interaction involve a lot more uncertainty. with a ‘look-ahead search’, in which it explores important step, he says, because humans learn DeepMind is fuelled by a “very powerful the consequences of playing promising moves with such little guidance. cocktail” of the freedoms usually reserved for and uses that to decide which one to pick. DeepMind, based in London, also plans to academic researchers, and by the vast staff and Next, DeepMind could tackle more games. venture beyond games. In February the com- computing resources that come with being a Most board games, in which players tend to pany founded DeepMind Health and launched Google-backed firm, says Joelle Pineau, a com- have access to all information about play, are a collaboration with the UK National Health puter scientist at McGill University in Mon- now solved. But machines still cannot beat Service: its algorithms could eventually be treal. Its achievement with Go has prompted humans at multiplayer poker, say, in which applied to clinical data to improve diagnoses or speculation about when an AI will have a ver- each player sees only their own cards. The treatment plans. Such applications pose differ- satile, general intelligence. “People’s minds race DeepMind team has expressed an interest in ent challenges from games, says Oren Etzioni, forward and say, if it can beat a world cham- tackling Starcraft, a science-fiction strategy chief executive of the non-profit Allen Institute pion it can do anything,” says Etzioni. But deep game, and Schaeffer suggests that DeepMind for Artificial Intelligence in Seattle, Washing- re­inforcement learning remains applicable only devise a program that can learn to play differ- ton. “The universal thing about games is that in certain domains, he says: “We are a long, long ent types of game from scratch. Such programs you can collect an arbitrary amount of data,” way from general artificial intelligence.” already compete annually at the International he says — and that the program is constantly DeepMind’s approach is not the only way General Game Playing Competition, which is getting feedback on what’s a good or bad move to push the boundaries of AI. Gary Marcus, a geared towards creating a more general type of by playing many games. But, in the messy real neuroscientist at New York University in New AI. Schaeffer suspects that DeepMind would world, data — on rare diseases, say — might be York City, has co-founded a start-up company, excel at the contest. “It’s so obvious, that I’m scarcer, and even with common diseases, label- Geometric Intelligence, to explore learn- positive they must be looking at it,” he says. ling the consequences of a decision as ‘good’ or ing techniques that extrapolate from a small DeepMind’s founder and chief executive ‘bad’ may not be straightforward.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: the Hope, the Hype, the Promise, the Peril
    Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: The Hope, the Hype, the Promise, the Peril Michael Matheny, Sonoo Thadaney Israni, Mahnoor Ahmed, and Danielle Whicher, Editors WASHINGTON, DC NAM.EDU PREPUBLICATION COPY - Uncorrected Proofs NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE • 500 Fifth Street, NW • WASHINGTON, DC 20001 NOTICE: This publication has undergone peer review according to procedures established by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM). Publication by the NAM worthy of public attention, but does not constitute endorsement of conclusions and recommendationssignifies that it is the by productthe NAM. of The a carefully views presented considered in processthis publication and is a contributionare those of individual contributors and do not represent formal consensus positions of the authors’ organizations; the NAM; or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data to Come Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Suggested citation: Matheny, M., S. Thadaney Israni, M. Ahmed, and D. Whicher, Editors. 2019. Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: The Hope, the Hype, the Promise, the Peril. NAM Special Publication. Washington, DC: National Academy of Medicine. PREPUBLICATION COPY - Uncorrected Proofs “Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.” --GOETHE PREPUBLICATION COPY - Uncorrected Proofs ABOUT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE The National Academy of Medicine is one of three Academies constituting the Nation- al Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies). The Na- tional Academies provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Note on Deep Learning and Quantum Many-Body Computation
    Lecture Note on Deep Learning and Quantum Many-Body Computation Jin-Guo Liu, Shuo-Hui Li, and Lei Wang∗ Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100190, China November 23, 2018 Abstract This note introduces deep learning from a computa- tional quantum physicist’s perspective. The focus is on deep learning’s impacts to quantum many-body compu- tation, and vice versa. The latest version of the note is at http://wangleiphy.github.io/. Please send comments, suggestions and corrections to the email address in below. ∗ [email protected] CONTENTS 1 introduction2 2 discriminative learning4 2.1 Data Representation 4 2.2 Model: Artificial Neural Networks 6 2.3 Cost Function 9 2.4 Optimization 11 2.4.1 Back Propagation 11 2.4.2 Gradient Descend 13 2.5 Understanding, Visualization and Applications Beyond Classification 15 3 generative modeling 17 3.1 Unsupervised Probabilistic Modeling 17 3.2 Generative Model Zoo 18 3.2.1 Boltzmann Machines 19 3.2.2 Autoregressive Models 22 3.2.3 Normalizing Flow 23 3.2.4 Variational Autoencoders 25 3.2.5 Tensor Networks 28 3.2.6 Generative Adversarial Networks 29 3.3 Summary 32 4 applications to quantum many-body physics and more 33 4.1 Material and Chemistry Discoveries 33 4.2 Density Functional Theory 34 4.3 “Phase” Recognition 34 4.4 Variational Ansatz 34 4.5 Renormalization Group 35 4.6 Monte Carlo Update Proposals 36 4.7 Tensor Networks 37 4.8 Quantum Machine Leanring 38 4.9 Miscellaneous 38 5 hands on session 39 5.1 Computation Graph and Back Propagation 39 5.2 Deep Learning Libraries 41 5.3 Generative Modeling using Normalizing Flows 42 5.4 Restricted Boltzmann Machine for Image Restoration 43 5.5 Neural Network as a Quantum Wave Function Ansatz 43 6 challenges ahead 45 7 resources 46 BIBLIOGRAPHY 47 1 1 INTRODUCTION Deep Learning (DL) ⊂ Machine Learning (ML) ⊂ Artificial Intelli- gence (AI).
    [Show full text]
  • AI Computer Wraps up 4-1 Victory Against Human Champion Nature Reports from Alphago's Victory in Seoul
    The Go Files: AI computer wraps up 4-1 victory against human champion Nature reports from AlphaGo's victory in Seoul. Tanguy Chouard 15 March 2016 SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA Google DeepMind Lee Sedol, who has lost 4-1 to AlphaGo. Tanguy Chouard, an editor with Nature, saw Google-DeepMind’s AI system AlphaGo defeat a human professional for the first time last year at the ancient board game Go. This week, he is watching top professional Lee Sedol take on AlphaGo, in Seoul, for a $1 million prize. It’s all over at the Four Seasons Hotel in Seoul, where this morning AlphaGo wrapped up a 4-1 victory over Lee Sedol — incidentally, earning itself and its creators an honorary '9-dan professional' degree from the Korean Baduk Association. After winning the first three games, Google-DeepMind's computer looked impregnable. But the last two games may have revealed some weaknesses in its makeup. Game four totally changed the Go world’s view on AlphaGo’s dominance because it made it clear that the computer can 'bug' — or at least play very poor moves when on the losing side. It was obvious that Lee felt under much less pressure than in game three. And he adopted a different style, one based on taking large amounts of territory early on rather than immediately going for ‘street fighting’ such as making threats to capture stones. This style – called ‘amashi’ – seems to have paid off, because on move 78, Lee produced a play that somehow slipped under AlphaGo’s radar. David Silver, a scientist at DeepMind who's been leading the development of AlphaGo, said the program estimated its probability as 1 in 10,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Accelerators and Obstacles to Emerging ML-Enabled Research Fields
    Life at the edge: accelerators and obstacles to emerging ML-enabled research fields Soukayna Mouatadid Steve Easterbrook Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science University of Toronto University of Toronto [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Machine learning is transforming several scientific disciplines, and has resulted in the emergence of new interdisciplinary data-driven research fields. Surveys of such emerging fields often highlight how machine learning can accelerate scientific discovery. However, a less discussed question is how connections between the parent fields develop and how the emerging interdisciplinary research evolves. This study attempts to answer this question by exploring the interactions between ma- chine learning research and traditional scientific disciplines. We examine different examples of such emerging fields, to identify the obstacles and accelerators that influence interdisciplinary collaborations between the parent fields. 1 Introduction In recent decades, several scientific research fields have experienced a deluge of data, which is impacting the way science is conducted. Fields such as neuroscience, psychology or social sciences are being reshaped by the advances in machine learning (ML) and the data processing technologies it provides. In some cases, new research fields have emerged at the intersection of machine learning and more traditional research disciplines. This is the case for example, for bioinformatics, born from collaborations between biologists and computer scientists in the mid-80s [1], which is now considered a well-established field with an active community, specialized conferences, university departments and research groups. How do these transformations take place? Do they follow similar paths? If yes, how can the advances in such interdisciplinary fields be accelerated? Researchers in the philosophy of science have long been interested in these questions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Deep Learning Revolution and Its Implications for Computer Architecture and Chip Design
    The Deep Learning Revolution and Its Implications for Computer Architecture and Chip Design Jeffrey Dean Google Research [email protected] Abstract The past decade has seen a remarkable series of advances in machine learning, and in particular deep learning approaches based on artificial neural networks, to improve our abilities to build more accurate systems across a broad range of areas, including computer vision, speech recognition, language translation, and natural language understanding tasks. This paper is a companion paper to a keynote talk at the 2020 International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) discussing some of the advances in machine learning, and their implications on the kinds of computational devices we need to build, especially in the post-Moore’s Law-era. It also discusses some of the ways that machine learning may also be able to help with some aspects of the circuit design process. Finally, it provides a sketch of at least one interesting direction towards much larger-scale multi-task models that are sparsely activated and employ much more dynamic, example- and task-based routing than the machine learning models of today. Introduction The past decade has seen a remarkable series of advances in machine learning (ML), and in particular deep learning approaches based on artificial neural networks, to improve our abilities to build more accurate systems across a broad range of areas [LeCun et al. 2015]. Major areas of significant advances ​ ​ include computer vision [Krizhevsky et al. 2012, Szegedy et al. 2015, He et al. 2016, Real et al. 2017, Tan ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ and Le 2019], speech recognition [Hinton et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power and Promise of Computers That Learn by Example
    Machine learning: the power and promise of computers that learn by example MACHINE LEARNING: THE POWER AND PROMISE OF COMPUTERS THAT LEARN BY EXAMPLE 1 Machine learning: the power and promise of computers that learn by example Issued: April 2017 DES4702 ISBN: 978-1-78252-259-1 The text of this work is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. The license is available at: creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Images are not covered by this license. This report can be viewed online at royalsociety.org/machine-learning Cover image © shulz. 2 MACHINE LEARNING: THE POWER AND PROMISE OF COMPUTERS THAT LEARN BY EXAMPLE Contents Executive summary 5 Recommendations 8 Chapter one – Machine learning 15 1.1 Systems that learn from data 16 1.2 The Royal Society’s machine learning project 18 1.3 What is machine learning? 19 1.4 Machine learning in daily life 21 1.5 Machine learning, statistics, data science, robotics, and AI 24 1.6 Origins and evolution of machine learning 25 1.7 Canonical problems in machine learning 29 Chapter two – Emerging applications of machine learning 33 2.1 Potential near-term applications in the public and private sectors 34 2.2 Machine learning in research 41 2.3 Increasing the UK’s absorptive capacity for machine learning 45 Chapter three – Extracting value from data 47 3.1 Machine learning helps extract value from ‘big data’ 48 3.2 Creating a data environment to support machine learning 49 3.3 Extending the lifecycle
    [Show full text]
  • In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
    In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit Presented by Josh Fried Background: Machine Learning Neural Networks: ● Multi Layer Perceptrons ● Recurrent Neural Networks (mostly LSTMs) ● Convolutional Neural Networks Synapse - each edge, has a weight Neuron - each node, sums weights and uses non-linear activation function over sum Propagating inputs through a layer of the NN is a matrix multiplication followed by an activation Background: Machine Learning Two phases: ● Training (offline) ○ relaxed deadlines ○ large batches to amortize costs of loading weights from DRAM ○ well suited to GPUs ○ Usually uses floating points ● Inference (online) ○ strict deadlines: 7-10ms at Google for some workloads ■ limited possibility for batching because of deadlines ○ Facebook uses CPUs for inference (last class) ○ Can use lower precision integers (faster/smaller/more efficient) ML Workloads @ Google 90% of ML workload time at Google spent on MLPs and LSTMs, despite broader focus on CNNs RankBrain (search) Inception (image classification), Google Translate AlphaGo (and others) Background: Hardware Trends End of Moore’s Law & Dennard Scaling ● Moore - transistor density is doubling every two years ● Dennard - power stays proportional to chip area as transistors shrink Machine Learning causing a huge growth in demand for compute ● 2006: Excess CPU capacity in datacenters is enough ● 2013: Projected 3 minutes per-day per-user of speech recognition ○ will require doubling datacenter compute capacity! Google’s Answer: Custom ASIC Goal: Build a chip that improves cost-performance for NN inference What are the main costs? Capital Costs Operational Costs (power bill!) TPU (V1) Design Goals Short design-deployment cycle: ~15 months! Plugs in to PCIe slot on existing servers Accelerates matrix multiplication operations Uses 8-bit integer operations instead of floating point How does the TPU work? CISC instructions, issued by host.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Intelligence and Big Data – Innovation Landscape Brief
    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND BIG DATA INNOVATION LANDSCAPE BRIEF © IRENA 2019 Unless otherwise stated, material in this publication may be freely used, shared, copied, reproduced, printed and/or stored, provided that appropriate acknowledgement is given of IRENA as the source and copyright holder. Material in this publication that is attributed to third parties may be subject to separate terms of use and restrictions, and appropriate permissions from these third parties may need to be secured before any use of such material. ISBN 978-92-9260-143-0 Citation: IRENA (2019), Innovation landscape brief: Artificial intelligence and big data, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by the Innovation team at IRENA’s Innovation and Technology Centre (IITC) with text authored by Sean Ratka, Arina Anisie, Francisco Boshell and Elena Ocenic. This report benefited from the input and review of experts: Marc Peters (IBM), Neil Hughes (EPRI), Stephen Marland (National Grid), Stephen Woodhouse (Pöyry), Luiz Barroso (PSR) and Dongxia Zhang (SGCC), along with Emanuele Taibi, Nadeem Goussous, Javier Sesma and Paul Komor (IRENA). Report available online: www.irena.org/publications For questions or to provide feedback: [email protected] DISCLAIMER This publication and the material herein are provided “as is”. All reasonable precautions have been taken by IRENA to verify the reliability of the material in this publication. However, neither IRENA nor any of its officials, agents, data or other third- party content providers provides a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, and they accept no responsibility or liability for any consequence of use of the publication or material herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Machine Theory of Mind
    Machine Theory of Mind Neil C. Rabinowitz∗ Frank Perbet H. Francis Song DeepMind DeepMind DeepMind [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Chiyuan Zhang S. M. Ali Eslami Matthew Botvinick Google Brain DeepMind DeepMind [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract 1. Introduction Theory of mind (ToM; Premack & Woodruff, For all the excitement surrounding deep learning and deep 1978) broadly refers to humans’ ability to rep- reinforcement learning at present, there is a concern from resent the mental states of others, including their some quarters that our understanding of these systems is desires, beliefs, and intentions. We propose to lagging behind. Neural networks are regularly described train a machine to build such models too. We de- as opaque, uninterpretable black-boxes. Even if we have sign a Theory of Mind neural network – a ToM- a complete description of their weights, it’s hard to get a net – which uses meta-learning to build models handle on what patterns they’re exploiting, and where they of the agents it encounters, from observations might go wrong. As artificial agents enter the human world, of their behaviour alone. Through this process, the demand that we be able to understand them is growing it acquires a strong prior model for agents’ be- louder. haviour, as well as the ability to bootstrap to Let us stop and ask: what does it actually mean to “un- richer predictions about agents’ characteristics derstand” another agent? As humans, we face this chal- and mental states using only a small number of lenge every day, as we engage with other humans whose behavioural observations.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding & Generalizing Alphago Zero
    Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2019 UNDERSTANDING &GENERALIZING ALPHAGO ZERO Anonymous authors Paper under double-blind review ABSTRACT AlphaGo Zero (AGZ) (Silver et al., 2017b) introduced a new tabula rasa rein- forcement learning algorithm that has achieved superhuman performance in the games of Go, Chess, and Shogi with no prior knowledge other than the rules of the game. This success naturally begs the question whether it is possible to develop similar high-performance reinforcement learning algorithms for generic sequential decision-making problems (beyond two-player games), using only the constraints of the environment as the “rules.” To address this challenge, we start by taking steps towards developing a formal understanding of AGZ. AGZ includes two key innovations: (1) it learns a policy (represented as a neural network) using super- vised learning with cross-entropy loss from samples generated via Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS); (2) it uses self-play to learn without training data. We argue that the self-play in AGZ corresponds to learning a Nash equilibrium for the two-player game; and the supervised learning with MCTS is attempting to learn the policy corresponding to the Nash equilibrium, by establishing a novel bound on the difference between the expected return achieved by two policies in terms of the expected KL divergence (cross-entropy) of their induced distributions. To extend AGZ to generic sequential decision-making problems, we introduce a robust MDP framework, in which the agent and nature effectively play a zero-sum game: the agent aims to take actions to maximize reward while nature seeks state transitions, subject to the constraints of that environment, that minimize the agent’s reward.
    [Show full text]
  • AI for Broadcsaters, Future Has Already Begun…
    AI for Broadcsaters, future has already begun… By Dr. Veysel Binbay, Specialist Engineer @ ABU Technology & Innovation Department 0 Dr. Veysel Binbay I have been working as Specialist Engineer at ABU Technology and Innovation Department for one year, before that I had worked at TRT (Turkish Radio and Television Corporation) for more than 20 years as a broadcast engineer, and also as an IT Director. I have wide experience on Radio and TV broadcasting technologies, including IT systems also. My experience includes to design, to setup, and to operate analogue/hybrid/digital radio and TV broadcast systems. I have also experienced on IT Networks. 1/25 What is Artificial Intelligence ? • Programs that behave externally like humans? • Programs that operate internally as humans do? • Computational systems that behave intelligently? 2 Some Definitions Trials for AI: The exciting new effort to make computers think … machines with minds, in the full literal sense. Haugeland, 1985 3 Some Definitions Trials for AI: The study of mental faculties through the use of computational models. Charniak and McDermott, 1985 A field of study that seeks to explain and emulate intelligent behavior in terms of computational processes. Schalkoff, 1990 4 Some Definitions Trials for AI: The study of how to make computers do things at which, at the moment, people are better. Rich & Knight, 1991 5 It’s obviously hard to define… (since we don’t have a commonly agreed definition of intelligence itself yet)… Lets try to focus to benefits, and solve definition problem later… 6 Brief history of AI 7 Brief history of AI . The history of AI begins with the following article: .
    [Show full text]
  • Efficiently Mastering the Game of Nogo with Deep Reinforcement
    electronics Article Efficiently Mastering the Game of NoGo with Deep Reinforcement Learning Supported by Domain Knowledge Yifan Gao 1,*,† and Lezhou Wu 2,† 1 College of Medicine and Biological Information Engineering, Northeastern University, Liaoning 110819, China 2 College of Information Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Liaoning 110819, China; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] † These authors contributed equally to this work. Abstract: Computer games have been regarded as an important field of artificial intelligence (AI) for a long time. The AlphaZero structure has been successful in the game of Go, beating the top professional human players and becoming the baseline method in computer games. However, the AlphaZero training process requires tremendous computing resources, imposing additional difficulties for the AlphaZero-based AI. In this paper, we propose NoGoZero+ to improve the AlphaZero process and apply it to a game similar to Go, NoGo. NoGoZero+ employs several innovative features to improve training speed and performance, and most improvement strategies can be transferred to other nonspecific areas. This paper compares it with the original AlphaZero process, and results show that NoGoZero+ increases the training speed to about six times that of the original AlphaZero process. Moreover, in the experiment, our agent beat the original AlphaZero agent with a score of 81:19 after only being trained by 20,000 self-play games’ data (small in quantity compared with Citation: Gao, Y.; Wu, L. Efficiently 120,000 self-play games’ data consumed by the original AlphaZero). The NoGo game program based Mastering the Game of NoGo with on NoGoZero+ was the runner-up in the 2020 China Computer Game Championship (CCGC) with Deep Reinforcement Learning limited resources, defeating many AlphaZero-based programs.
    [Show full text]