People occasionally ask me about signs that the remaining timeline might be short. It&#x27;s <i>very</i> easy for nonprofessionals to take too much alarm too easily. Deep Blue beating Kasparov at chess was <i>not</i> such a sign. Robotic cars are <i>not</i> such a sign.<p>This is.<p>&quot;Here we introduce a new approach to computer Go that uses ‘value networks’ to evaluate board positions and ‘policy networks’ to select moves... Without any lookahead search, the neural networks play Go at the level of state-of-the-art Monte Carlo tree search programs that simulate thousands of random games of self-play. We also introduce a new search algorithm that combines Monte Carlo simulation with value and policy networks. Using this search algorithm, our program AlphaGo achieved a 99.8% winning rate against other Go programs, and defeated the human European Go champion by 5 games to 0.&quot;<p>This matches something I&#x27;ve previously named in private conversation as a warning sign - sharply above-trend performance at Go from a neural algorithm. What this indicates is not that deep learning in particular is going to be the Game Over algorithm. Rather, the background variables are looking more like &quot;Human neural intelligence is not that complicated and current algorithms are touching on keystone, foundational aspects of it.&quot; What&#x27;s alarming is not this particular breakthrough, but what it implies about the general background settings of the computational universe.<p>Go is a game that is very computationally difficult for traditional chess-style techniques. Human masters learn to play Go very intuitively, because the human cortical algorithm turns out to generalize well. If deep learning can do something similar, <i>plus</i> (a previous real sign) have a single network architecture learn to play loads of different old computer games, that may indicate we&#x27;re starting to get into the range of &quot;neural algorithms that generalize well, the way that the human cortical algorithm generalizes well&quot;.<p>A number of commenters are talking about how the human professional beat was well below the world champion.  This is entirely missing the point.  Beating the <i>best</i> human is an entirely arbitrary threshold, which is why Deep Blue vs. Kasparov wasn&#x27;t a great sign per se.  There&#x27;s probably nothing computationally distinguished about the very best human versus a very good human - the world champion isn&#x27;t using a basically different algorithm.  What matters is the discontinuous jump, how it was done, and the absolute level of human-style competence achieved.<p>This result also supports that &quot;Everything always stays on a smooth exponential trend, you don&#x27;t get discontinuous competence boosts from new algorithmic insights&quot; is false even for the non-recursive case, but that was already obvious from my perspective. Evidence that&#x27;s more easily interpreted by a wider set of eyes is always helpful, I guess.<p>I hope that everyone in 2010 who tried to eyeball the AI alignment problem, and concluded with their own eyeballs that we had until 2050 to start really worrying about it, enjoyed their use of whatever resources they decided not to devote to the problem at that time.