Live data from Hacker News

AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

twitter.com

101–110 of 596 posts

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#101
post #51
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never felt playing against what is suppose to be an entire room of machines (wether Deep Blue or Watson) to be fair. What would be fair is to limit the total mass of the computer to say 200kg and leave it at that. What is effectively happening is AlphaGo is running on a distributed system of many, many machines. Even Watson took an entire room. Google is paying a premium to push AlphaGo to win.

A top smartphone chess program can beat pretty much all but the best few players in the world. Do you think it's fair to pit a 150 gram device against a 70 kg human?

Although a fairer comparison would be against 1 kg of brain. Comparing against a human would need to include all the infrastructure for the device such as energy production or the manufacturing equipment required.

But nevertheless, fitting so much computing power in such a small device is a great achievement.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#102
I'm truly amazed also, I'm not surprised or shocked. Once I knew that the previous master was beaten, I knew it's just a matter of time to see the #1 player topped.

What would be shocking is to find out that a famous writer, musician or scientist is in fact, just an alias for an advanced AI system :) It needs a little trick, because people should be tricked into believing that there's a real person behind the name.

Oh wait, I just remembered that there's a (mediocre) movie made on the subject: S1m0ne ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/ )

Are you saying it won't happen? Think of the guys saying the same of go :)

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#103
post #62
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's accurate to call AlphaGo 'improved tree search' the way that Deep Blue was improved tree search. You could with equal justice call it an improved neural net.

I'd say both characterizations are accurate. Neither the tree search nor the neural net could have accomplished this on their own. But the essential interface to the algorithm is the tree search: it's picking the best move from a set of legal moves determined by formal game rules. The real world doesn't follow formal game rules. I find it difficult to see the progression from this victory to some kind of real-world A…

> The real world doesn't follow formal game rules.

Really?

Why not?

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#104

I watched the commentary that Michael Redmond gave (9-dan-professional) and he didn't point out one obvious mistake that Lee Sedol made the entire match. Just really high quality play by AlphaGo. Really amazing moment to see Lee Sedol resign by putting one of his opponent's stones on the board.

Lee had quite a bit of advantages in the middle then he made one bad mistake and that was it. Deepmind made some smaller mistakes too but not as bad.

I am really excited about the Deepmind though. Looking forward to tomorrow's game!

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#105
post #51
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never felt playing against what is suppose to be an entire room of machines (wether Deep Blue or Watson) to be fair. What would be fair is to limit the total mass of the computer to say 200kg and leave it at that. What is effectively happening is AlphaGo is running on a distributed system of many, many machines. Even Watson took an entire room. Google is paying a premium to push AlphaGo to win.

A top smartphone chess program can beat pretty much all but the best few players in the world. Do you think it's fair to pit a 150 gram device against a 70 kg human?

A chess program on your smartphone will obliterate even the world champion - http://en.chessbase.com/post/komodo-8-the-smartphone-vs-desk...

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#106
post #74
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a proof-of-concept. What they've proved is that the same kind of intelligence required to play Go can be implemented with computer hardware. Before now, software couldn't beat a ranked human player at Go no matter how much computing power we threw at it . Now we can. Give it ten years and, between algorithmic optimizations and advances in processing, you'll have an unbeatable Go app on your phone.

Indeed. The first time a computer defeated a human in Chess it was this[1] size (1997). In 2009 it became possible to fit a grandmaster into this[2]. > Pocket Fritz 4 won the Copa Mercosur tournament in Buenos Aires, Argentina with 9 wins and 1 draw on August 4–14, 2009. Pocket Fritz 4 searches fewer than 20,000 positions per second. This is in contrast to supercomputers such as Deep Blue that searched 200 million po…

GM Michael Stean lost to Cyber 176 (a mainframe 'supercomputer') in 1977 (at blitz). AFAIK this was the first time a computer defeated a GM; they began defeating IMs and experts some ten years before that. Kasparov himself lost to Fritz 2 at blitz as early as 1992.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#107
post #28
post #15

"AlphaGos Elo when it beat Fan Hui was 3140 using 1202 CPUs and 176 GPUs. Lee Sedol has an equivalent Elo to 3515 on the same scale (Elos on different scales aren't directly comparable). For each doubling of computer resources AlphaGo gains about 60 points of Elo."

So has AlphaGo raised its level so far just by continuing with the games against itself? Or did they just throw their entire server farm at it? (Or both, probably.)

Demis said it used roughly the same hardware resources as against Fan Hui?

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's any consolation, there are still tons of things humans are far better at than machines.

The only remaining are language-related. Natural languages are the next focal point of AI research.

> The only remaining are language-related

That is a gigantic over-simplification. All machines are application specific, even machine-learning based ones. They all require human supervision, whether through goal setting or fixing errors.

There are some areas where machines are better than humans, and playing Go is now one of them, but that doesn't mean machines will replace humans in all facets at any given point in time. We grow, our tools grow, and the cycle repeats.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#109
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly optimised single-function algorithms like this are impressive stuff and can lead to useful tools, but that's it. This gets us no closer to strong AI than a tic tac toe program. Until we have systems that can tackle a wide range of fundamentally different problems and independently adapt strategies for dealing with one class of problems to deal with other classes of problems, systems like Alphago will remain on…

'True AI will always be defined as anything a computer can not yet do'

Sort-of repeating a comment I made last time AlphaGo came up:

As far as I know there is nothing particularly novel about AlphaGo, in the sense that if we stuck an AI researcher from ten years ago in a time machine to today, the researcher would not be astonished by the brilliant new techniques and ideas behind AlphaGo; rather, the time-traveling researcher would probably categorize AlphaGo as the result of ten years' incremental refinement of already-known techniques, and of ten years' worth of hardware development coupled with a company able to devote the resources to building it.

So if what we had ten years ago wasn't generally considered "true AI", what about AlphaGo causes it to deserve that title, given that it really seems to be just "the same as we already had, refined a bit and running on better hardware"?

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#110
Deep Blue:

Massive search +

Hand-coded search heuristics +

Hand-coded board position evaluation heuristics [1]

AlphaGo:

Search via simulations (Monte Carlo Tree Search) +

Learned search heuristics (policy networks) +

Learned patterns (value networks) [2]

Human strongholds seem to be our ability to learn search heuristics and complex patterns. We can perform some simulations but not nearly as extensively as what machines are capable of.

The reason Kasparov could hold himself against Deep Blue 200,000,000-per-second search performance during their first match was probably due to his much superior search heuristics to drastically focus on better paths and better evaluation of complex positions. The patterns in chess, however, may not be complex enough that better evaluation function gives very much benefits. More importantly, its branching factor after using heuristics is low enough such that massive search will yield substantial advantage.

In Go, patterns are much more complex than chess with many simultaneous battlegrounds that can potentially be connected. Go’s Branching factor is also multiple-times higher than Chess’, rendering massive search without good guidance powerless. These in turn raise the value of learned patterns. Google stated that its learned policy networks is so strong “that raw neural networks (immediately, without any tree search at all) can defeat state-of-the-art Go programs that build enormous search trees”. This is equivalent to Kasparov using learned patterns to hold himself against massive search in Deep Blue (in their first match) and a key reason Go professionals can still beat other Go programs.

AlphaGo demonstrates that combining algorithms that mimic human abilities with powerful machines can surpass expert humans in very complex tasks.

The big questions we should strive to answer before it is too late are:

1) What trump cards humans still hold against computer algorithms and massively parallel machines?

2) What to do when a few more breakthroughs have enabled machines to surpass us in all relevant tasks?

Note: It is not entirely clear from the IBM article that the search heuristics is hand-coded, but it seems likely from the prevalent AI technique at the time.

[1] https://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/meet/html/d.3.2.html [2] http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2016/01/alphago-mastering...

Post reply on HN