When South Korean go champion Lee Sedol lost his first game to AlphaGo, the whole world was shocked. It was more than just a game of go: It was a milestone in the development of artificial intelligence (AI).
Exactly how did AlphaGo do it? Why were the go programs that came before unable to do it? And how human-like is this AI? Cognitive psychology might offer some interesting insights on the issue.
Since the 1940s, psychologists have been studying people who excel in certain areas, hoping to understand their psychological structure and explain their development. The first research of this kind focused on chess experts, where cognitive psychologists compared chess experts and chess rookies, and were surprised to find they are not very different. Experts are just faster at finding the right move, and the reason has nothing to do with their intelligence or memory capacity, but their advanced ability to recognize patterns on the chess board.
When looking at the pieces in a game, those who excel at chess memorize the pattern they present, which includes the correlations between various pieces. These correlations can reveal the intentions and strategies of a chess player. As a chess player gains more experience, they also become better at reading and memorizing the patterns, so that when a familiar pattern shows up, an expert can immediately predict the ensuing development of the game based on experience. Rookies, on the other hand, cannot see the relations between the pieces in a game. To them, the way the pieces are placed on the board is random. As a result, they often misjudge a situation.
AlphaGo is different from AIs of the past in a number of ways. First, it uses neural networks to recognize patterns. Neural networks are superior to traditional AI, because they can accumulate and learn from their own experiences. In addition to remembering shapes, they can extract patterns from those shapes, and they can also use Monte Carlo methods — computational algorithms used to obtain results from random sampling — to assist their strategic choices. This means that AlphaGo can make decisions based on shapes and patterns to analyze the situation and make an assessment of which move would increase the possibility of victory.
These mechanisms are characteristics of human cognitive systems, but in addition to relying on these two mechanisms, AlphaGo also possesses computing power that far exceeds the human brain.
We have limited cognitive sources at our disposal. For example, “1+1=?” is a simple problem, but many people would find “12345+56789=?” to be a bit of a challenge. Working memory span — the longest list of items a person can remember correctly immediately after having been presented with the list — is an indicator of cognitive resources, and just like a computer’s random-access memory, this is the brain’s platform for processing information. It is limited in size, and the more complex a task, the more cognitive resources it uses up, and this has a direct effect on how fast and how accurate human calculations are. Compared with AlphaGo, Lee’s greatest weakness was that he is human, and thus is restricted by his working memory span.
Although Lee is also capable of analyzing a situation and then arriving at an estimate, his working memory span is limited, and that affects the number of moves available for him to choose from. From this perspective, AlphaGo is indeed different from humans, but in the field of AI, similarity to humans is not necessarily the main point. Instead, the goal is to create a robot capable of displaying intelligence.
From this perspective, AlphaGo clearly set a new milestone in the field of AI, although the very fact that its intelligence surpasses the human brain shows that it is not sufficiently human. For humans to be able to beat it, perhaps it must be made more human.
Lee-xieng Yang is an associate professor at National Chengchi University’s Department of Psychology.
Translated by Yu-an Tu and Perry Svensson
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
Despite the steady modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the international community is skeptical of its warfare capabilities. Late last month, US think tank RAND Corp published two reports revealing the PLA’s two greatest hurdles: personnel challenges and structural difficulties. The first RAND report, by Jennie W. Wenger, titled Factors Shaping the Future of China’s Military, analyzes the PLA’s obstacles with recruitment, stating that China has long been committed to attracting young talent from top universities to augment the PLA’s modernization needs. However, the plan has two major constraints: demographic changes and the adaptability of the PLA’s military culture.