Diversifying AI: Towards Creative Chess with AlphaZero
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have made significant advancements and surpassed human intelligence in computational tasks.
- AI systems have limitations, including making mistakes, having blind spots, struggling to generalize, and sometimes hallucinating.
- This study explores whether AI can benefit from creative decision-making mechanisms when pushed to its limits.
- Researchers investigate if a team of diverse AI systems can outperform a single AI by generating more ideas and selecting the best ones.
- The game of chess is chosen as the research focus due to its significance in AI research.
- AlphaZero (AZ), an advanced AI system known for exceptional chess performance, is extended with a new architecture called AZ_db.
- AZ_db represents a league of agents within AlphaZero, allowing for greater diversity and idea generation using behavioral diversity techniques.
- Sub-additive planning is employed to select the most promising ideas generated by AZ_db.
- Extensive experiments show that AZ_db plays chess differently compared to a homogeneous team and solves more puzzles as a group.
- AZ_db outperforms the single-agent version of AlphaZero (AZ), solving twice as many challenging puzzles including complex positions like Penrose positions.
- Players within AZ_db specialize in specific openings, leading to an improvement of 50 Elo points over AZ alone by strategically selecting players using sub-additive planning techniques.
- Diversity bonuses emerge within teams of AI agents similar to teams of humans.
- Diversity is valuable in solving computationally hard problems and significantly enhances the performance of AI systems.
Authors: Tom Zahavy, Vivek Veeriah, Shaobo Hou, Kevin Waugh, Matthew Lai, Edouard Leurent, Nenad Tomasev, Lisa Schut, Demis Hassabis, Satinder Singh
Abstract: In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have surpassed human intelligence in a variety of computational tasks. However, AI systems, like humans, make mistakes, have blind spots, hallucinate, and struggle to generalize to new situations. This work explores whether AI can benefit from creative decision-making mechanisms when pushed to the limits of its computational rationality. In particular, we investigate whether a team of diverse AI systems can outperform a single AI in challenging tasks by generating more ideas as a group and then selecting the best ones. We study this question in the game of chess, the so-called drosophila of AI. We build on AlphaZero (AZ) and extend it to represent a league of agents via a latent-conditioned architecture, which we call AZ_db. We train AZ_db to generate a wider range of ideas using behavioral diversity techniques and select the most promising ones with sub-additive planning. Our experiments suggest that AZ_db plays chess in diverse ways, solves more puzzles as a group and outperforms a more homogeneous team. Notably, AZ_db solves twice as many challenging puzzles as AZ, including the challenging Penrose positions. When playing chess from different openings, we notice that players in AZ_db specialize in different openings, and that selecting a player for each opening using sub-additive planning results in a 50 Elo improvement over AZ. Our findings suggest that diversity bonuses emerge in teams of AI agents, just as they do in teams of humans and that diversity is a valuable asset in solving computationally hard problems.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.