High Signal Podcasts Evidence ledger
Method
Browse
← Back to evidence

Evidence receipt / evaluation

Published · transcript-backed

Eric Jang: evaluation

15 May 2026 Dwarkesh Podcast Eric Jang – Building AlphaGo from scratch

“Experts might decide to end the game well before that, but under Tromp-Taylor scoring, you actually have to play things all the way to the end.”

— Eric Jang

Source trail

Everything needed to verify it.

Speaker
Eric Jang
Attribution
Verified speaker
Claim type
evaluation
Recorded
15 May 2026
Publisher
Dwarkesh Podcast

Transcript context

…Now help me crack this with AI. Let’s understand how AlphaGo actually works and how somebody in the audience might be able to implement it. Let’s start with an intuition about the underlying search process used to make moves, and we’ll layer on ideas from deep learning to make it much more efficient and tractable. Go is a game with just two players. We’re going to draw a person here, and we’re going to draw an AI here. Let’s say this person is playing black, so they go first. They go here. Now the AI is going to make a move based on what it sees here. There’s a question of how you encode these inputs into the AI. Maybe you could use ones and zeros, but you want to represent black, white, and empty. You would need at least three different values. Maybe you could use zeros, ones, and twos. The AI might see something like zero, zero, zero, zero, one. This is the input to the AI on its turn. The AI can choose. Let’s just pick three possible random moves it can make, and I just drew these at random. Which move is best here? Well, we don’t know until the game ends. Go doesn’t have any kind of local reward for which move here is good. This is what makes Go a very difficult game. You don’t actually know who won until you really get to the end. How deep is this tree? On a 19x19 Go board, there are roughly on the order of 361 moves on any given move, and of course, as it fills up, you have fewer moves. The number of steps in the game can be somewhere from 250 to 300 moves. Experts might decide to end the game well before that, but under Tromp-Taylor scoring, you actually have to play things all the way to the end. So this could be 300 moves, a depth of 300 in the tree. If you keep on expanding possible moves—here the AI goes, then here the human would go, and so forth—you find that you end up with an enormous explosion in the possible game outcomes originating from just this one state. This is something on the order of 361300, which is far more than the number of atoms in the universe. Of course, there are redundancies and symmetries, so it’s not actually that, but if you were to do a naive tree with no merging of children, you end up with a tree about this big. What do you mean by “merging of children”?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.

Search evidence