Parent said “different from how humans think”, not play, which seems key. Your description is very broad.
These machines don’t seem to carry narratives or plans yet (if they would benefit from them or be encumbered by them seems to be an open question).
Watching the machines play they have zero inertia. If the next opportunity means a completely inverted play strategy has a marginally better chance of winning, they will switch their entire approach.
Humans don’t typically do this, although having learned from machines that it can produce better outcomes perhaps we will start moving away from this local maximum.
> Watching the machines play they have zero inertia. If the next opportunity means a completely inverted play strategy has a marginally better chance of winning, they will switch their entire approach.
In Go, especially at the high level, this isn't that far outside of the norm. In particular, you see players play in other areas (tenuki) at what to a weaker player would look like pretty random times, depending on what's most urgent or biggest.
Computer go players aren't too chaotic. They're just _very_ good at some things that are already high-level-player traits. A computer will just give you what you want, but suddenly it's just not actually that good. It feels like Bruce Lee's flow/adaptation based fighting style applied to a go board.
These machines don’t seem to carry narratives or plans yet (if they would benefit from them or be encumbered by them seems to be an open question).
Watching the machines play they have zero inertia. If the next opportunity means a completely inverted play strategy has a marginally better chance of winning, they will switch their entire approach.
Humans don’t typically do this, although having learned from machines that it can produce better outcomes perhaps we will start moving away from this local maximum.