Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
wasoxygen's comments
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.

    GM Hikaru Nakamura ... called the match "dishonest" and pointed out that Stockfish's methodology requires it to have an openings book for optimal performance.

I agree that's a significant handicap, and it would seem fairer to pit the algorithms against each other at full strength, running on equivalent hardware.

Still, it would merely be an exhibition to see which bot is farther along on the road to divinity.

    "I am pretty sure God himself could not beat Stockfish 75 percent of the time with White without certain handicaps."
Devac  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Let's not be so darmatic. ;)

The future is here – AlphaZero learns chess

    Approaching chess might still seem unusual. After all, although DeepMind had already shown near revolutionary breakthroughs thanks to Go, that had been a game that had yet to be ‘solved’. Chess already had its Deep Blue 20 years ago, and today even a good smartphone can beat the world number one. What is there to prove exactly?

Would the best mobile phone chess app be a favorite in a match against Carlsen?

    AlphaZero had done more than just master the game, it had attained new heights in ways considered inconceivable. The test is in the pudding of course, so before going into some of the fascinating nitty-gritty details, let’s cut to the chase. It played a match against the latest and greatest version of Stockfish, and won by an incredible score of 64 : 36, and not only that, AlphaZero had zero losses (28 wins and 72 draws)!

    Stockfish needs no introduction to ChessBase readers, but it's worth noting that the program was on a computer that was running nearly 900 times faster! Indeed, AlphaZero was calculating roughly 80 thousand positions per second, while Stockfish, running on a PC with 64 threads (likely a 32-core machine) was running at 70 million positions per second. In spite of this insane deficit, AlphaZero crushed Stockfish 64-36 with no losses at a time control of one minute per move.

    In the diagram above, we can see that in the early games, AlphaZero was quite enthusiastic about playing the French Defense, but after two hours (this so humiliating) began to play it less and less.
Devac  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

But (from what I gather) Stockfish didn't have an opening book. It plays a big role when it comes to performance and the level of play. It doesn't diminish the achievement, though I wouldn't mind a repeat.

wasoxygen  ·  6 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    GM Hikaru Nakamura ... called the match "dishonest" and pointed out that Stockfish's methodology requires it to have an openings book for optimal performance.

I agree that's a significant handicap, and it would seem fairer to pit the algorithms against each other at full strength, running on equivalent hardware.

Still, it would merely be an exhibition to see which bot is farther along on the road to divinity.

    "I am pretty sure God himself could not beat Stockfish 75 percent of the time with White without certain handicaps."
Devac  ·  5 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Let's not be so darmatic. ;)

Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.

    People will put financial concerns over what they have access to.

I agree, and am in favor. People should make their own decisions about how to spend their money. Making everyone pay for a standard level of service (or else go without any service) does not seem like the way to please as many people as possible.

What's so bad about a world that includes the choice of cheap, basic internet service?

    I'll remind you of this conversation once a major ISP starts banning political speech it doesn't like.

I would like to express our disagreement in the form of a prediction, so we could give it some time and come back and see who was right. But I don't understand what your language of "banning political speech" even means.

johnnyFive  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    People should make their own decisions about how to spend their money.

And what happens when Comcast decides that I can no longer exercise my choice to spend money on Netflix?

    What's so bad about a world that includes the choice of cheap, basic internet service?

Because that's not what the ISPs are interested in doing. As I said before, why on Earth would they lower prices just because?

    But I don't understand what your language of "banning political speech" even means.

Say Congress discusses the possibility of overriding the FCC's decision. What's to stop Comcast or Verizon or Time Warner or whoever from simply disallowing any of their users from accessing sites that advocate for it? What's to stop them from disallowing their users to access the sites of the EFF, the ACLU, ProPublica, any newspaper they don't like?

I agree that comparatively few customers have access to 25 mbps broadband, as the map on your link shows.

If, instead, the map showed that most people can get 25 mbps, but few can get 100 mbps, would you continue to claim that Americans have insufficient access to broadband? You can keep raising the number until you reach a point where most people can't get that number.

Why is 25 mbps the target?

25 mbps is fast enough for five simultaneous high-definition Netflix streams. Is it some kind of market failure if a lot of people can't do that? How many people want to? How many are willing to pay for that level of service?

Netflix is the runaway leader of streaming services, serving some 50 million U.S. households. 50% of households subscribe to any video-on-demand service.

So half the country may not even be willing to pay for the 5 Mbps needed to stream HD, or 3 Mbps for SD video.

    Now it's your turn to provide a source.

I'll start with the "For more information" link from your source. As usual, to understand what's going on you have to dig into a long, tedious PDF.

From page 6:

    In the 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Commission increased the speed benchmark for advanced telecommunications capability to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, up from the 4 Mbps/1 Mbps benchmark used in the previous three Reports. In setting the benchmark, the Commission took into account the needs of multiple users in the average household, as well as the speeds required to use high-quality video, data, voice, and other broadband applications.

So the FCC defines mom, dad, and the three kids each watching their own HD movie all at once as "advanced" broadband, that's fine. I think it is a lot more bandwidth than many households are willing to pay for.

What's the outlook for a more basic broadband, say enough to watch just one or two movies at the same time, or perhaps just use Facebook and do some job-hunting?

The latest Internet Access Service Report was published in April. (The FCC budget, by the way, was perfectly constant from 2014 to 2017, with some extra funds for moving headquarters added in 2016-17. It has been pretty nearly constant since 2009.)

Page 6 has a chart like this one, from a 2016 article.

The numbers in this year's report have improved.

For 10 Mbps, enough to watch three simultaneous SD movies or two in high definition, 79% of developed census blocks have three or more ISPs to choose from. A census block is not the same as a household, but I haven't found more granular data. Another 18% have two providers, for a total of 97% of census blocks with choice in ISP.

For those who are willing to give up high-definition, and are content to watch one movie at a time, or simply choose not to subscribe to video on demand, 90% have three or more providers, 10% have two.

I think you may be overestimating the level of service many households are interested in paying for.

johnnyFive  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    I think you may be overestimating the level of service many households are interested in paying for.

I'm not, but that's basically my point. People will put financial concerns over what they have access to.

I'll remind you of this conversation once a major ISP starts banning political speech it doesn't like.

wasoxygen  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    People will put financial concerns over what they have access to.

I agree, and am in favor. People should make their own decisions about how to spend their money. Making everyone pay for a standard level of service (or else go without any service) does not seem like the way to please as many people as possible.

What's so bad about a world that includes the choice of cheap, basic internet service?

    I'll remind you of this conversation once a major ISP starts banning political speech it doesn't like.

I would like to express our disagreement in the form of a prediction, so we could give it some time and come back and see who was right. But I don't understand what your language of "banning political speech" even means.

johnnyFive  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    People should make their own decisions about how to spend their money.

And what happens when Comcast decides that I can no longer exercise my choice to spend money on Netflix?

    What's so bad about a world that includes the choice of cheap, basic internet service?

Because that's not what the ISPs are interested in doing. As I said before, why on Earth would they lower prices just because?

    But I don't understand what your language of "banning political speech" even means.

Say Congress discusses the possibility of overriding the FCC's decision. What's to stop Comcast or Verizon or Time Warner or whoever from simply disallowing any of their users from accessing sites that advocate for it? What's to stop them from disallowing their users to access the sites of the EFF, the ACLU, ProPublica, any newspaper they don't like?

Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
Sorry, this comment is private.
wasoxygen  ·  12 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: What will the price of Bitcoin be one year from today?

Today must be bubblenalysis day!

The Grumpy Economist opines on Bitcoin and Bubbles, with a jaw-dropping WSJ chart comparing 2017's 1000% rise in bitcoin to other "historically huge market moves." It seems unfair because all the other assets were decades old where the chart starts; bitcoin is not yet 10.

    The first equation of asset pricing is that price = expected present value of dividends. Bitcoin has no cash dividends, and never will. So right off the bat we have a problem...

    In sum, what's going on with Bitcoin seems to me like a perfectly "normal" phenomenon. Intersect a convenience yield and speculative demand with a temporarily limited supply, plus temporarily limited supply of substitutes, and you get a price surge.

Marginal Revolution asks Is Bitcoin just a bubble? with a hypothesis, similar but briefer than mine, starting with $241 trillion in wealth in the world.

    think of Bitcoin as competing for some of the asset space held by gold and also to some extent art. Gold, too, in its hedging functions is a “bubble,” though not a bubble. It is hard to ship, but has some extra value because it is perceived as a focal asset and one that does not covary positively in a simple way with the market portfolio. The same is true of Bitcoin, yet that kind of focality-based “bubbliness” can persist for centuries.

A comment mentions Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, which may be a good answer to your request for research on bubbles. Gutenberg link

    Another story is told of an English traveller, which is scarcely less ludicrous. This gentleman, an amateur botanist, happened to see a tulip-root lying in the conservatory of a wealthy Dutchman. Being ignorant of its quality, he took out his penknife, and peeled off its coats, with the view of making experiments upon it. When it was by this means reduced to half its size, he cut it into two equal sections, making all the time many learned remarks on the singular appearances of the unknown bulb. Suddenly, the owner pounced upon him, and, with fury in his eyes, asked him if he knew what he had been doing? “Peeling a most extraordinary onion,” replied the philosopher. “Hundert tausend duyvel!” said the Dutchman; “it’s an Admiral Van der Eyck.” “Thank you,” replied the traveller, taking out his note-book to make a memorandum of the same; “are these admirals common in your country?” “Death and the devil!” said the Dutchman, seizing the astonished man of science by the collar; “come before the syndic, and you shall see.” In spite of his remonstrances, the traveller was led through the streets followed by a mob of persons. When brought into the presence of the magistrate, he learned, to his consternation, that the root upon which he had been experimentalising was worth four thousand florins; and, notwithstanding all he could urge in extenuation, he was lodged in prison until he found securities for the payment of this sum.