I was just thinking, does AlphaGo's game strategy also emulate some sort of psychological strategies used by real human, such as bullying, confusing or making fun of its opponent when it sees fit.
AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches
181–190 of 596 posts
Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches
#182Deep 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 machi…
Strong AI is not necessarily a bad thing. Instead of worrying about questions 1 & 2, we could be thinking less about constraint and competition with AI and more about cooperation and goal-orientation: e.g. the work of Yudkowsky ( https://intelligence.org/files/CFAI.pdf ) or some of the thoughts provided by Nick Bostrom http://nickbostrom.com/ . Goal-orientation is preferable to capability constraint because the poten…
I agree that superintelligence could bring enormous benefits to humanity but the risks are very high as well. They are in fact existential risks, as detailed in the book Superintelligence by Bostrom.
That is why we need to invest much more research efforts on Friendly AI and trustworthy intelligent systems. People should consider contribute to MIRI (https://intelligence.org/) where Yudkowsky, who helped pioneer this line of research, works as a senior fellow.
Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches
#183Can someone explain why this is more impressive than a computer beating top chess players over a decade ago? I'm not very familiar with Go, and while there were far more squares on a Go board, it seems less sophisticated than chess to me. Maybe Go has way more moves possible and emergent strategies or something I'm not taking into account.
Here's a way to measure the sophistication of a game of skill. Consider two players A and Z. A is a ten-year-old who has just been told the rules; Z is God. Now, in between them, put a series of other players B, ..., Y, where B beats A 2/3 of the time, C beats B 2/3 of the time, ..., Z beats Y 2/3 of the time. (We assume God doesn't use his magical divine powers to cheat by, e.g., making Y play bad moves.)
Unfortunately, God is not readily available for comparison, so we'll use the best human players instead.
How many links are there in that chain? The more there are, the more there is to learn about the game, and hence the deeper and more sophisticated the game is. (So you might think, anyway.)
If you rate players using the Elo system, beating someone 2/3 of the time corresponds to being about 150 points stronger. A complete beginner at chess might have an Elo rating of 500, compared with the world champion somewhere around 2900, giving 16 links in the chain.
In go, beating someone 2/3 of the time corresponds to being about one kyu/dan rank stronger. A complete beginner might be 30 kyu; the best players are stronger than 9 amateur dan, so that's at least 40 links in the chain. (Lower-numbered kyu ranks are stronger; after 1 kyu comes 1 dan, and then higher-numbered dan ranks are stronger.)
So by this measure -- which you may or may not find convincing -- go is a more sophisticated game than chess.
Here is the best argument I know against this definition. Define the game of "tenchess" as follows. To play a game of tenchess, you play ten games of chess and the winner is whoever wins more games (a draw if the same number). Then it's easy to see that tenchess has a longer chain, as defined above, than chess; if I win 2/3 of my chess games then I win 79% of my tenchess games, so I can win 2/3 of my tenchess games with a smaller advantage. (I am ignoring the existence of draws for this calculation, just for simplicity.) But surely tenchess isn't a deeper game than chess; it's just longer. Perhaps go's longer chain is just the result of its being a longer game.
Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not really, the brain to operate also needs all the other systems. Just as a CPU needs all the other parts to function. And including the manufacturing equipment is just as false, in the sense that you would have to include his mother (as biological manufacturing)
The human can run off resources that are available "in the wild", self-repair, and self-replicate at better than 1:1 (that is, a group of n humans produce >n offspring), whereas the smartphone needs a huge amount of infrastructure to repair it and produce new ones.
I don't think any mass comparison is really meaningful, mind, but it's not that simple.
Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches
#185A human was beaten with some thousands of CPUS & GPUS. On a calorie level, the human is still more efficient.
On a time to learn these skills... going from zero (computer rolls off assembly line) to mastery, the computer wins.
Actually maybe the computer wins even on the caloric level, if you consider all the energy that was required to get the human to that point (and all the humans that didn't get to that point, but tried).
Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches
#186Earlier 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.
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.
> Give it ten years and, between algorithmic optimizations and advances in processing, you'll have an unbeatable Go app on your phone.
I find this overly optimistic because of the huge amount of power required to run the Go application. Remember, we're getting closer and closer to the theoretical lower limit in the size of silicon chips, which is around 4nm (that's about a dozen silicon atoms). That's a 3-4x improvement over the current state of the art.
The computer to run AlphaGo requires thousands of watts of power. A smartphone can do about one watt. A 3-4x increase in perf per watt isn't going to cut it.
If there will be a smartphone capable of beating the best human Go players, my guess is that it won't be based on general purpose silicon chips running on lithium ion batteries.
On the other hand, a desktop computer with a ~1000 watt power supply (ie. a gaming pc) might be able to do this in a matter of years or a few decades.
Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches
#187Earlier 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.
> 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 . I don't think that's quite true as a description of what we knew about computer Go previously, though it depends on what precisely you mean. Recent systems (meaning the past 10 years…
> Play strength scales roughly with the log of computing power
That means that the problem is exponentially hard. EXPTIME, actually. You couldn't possibly scale it much.
Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches
#188A human was beaten with some thousands of CPUS & GPUS. On a calorie level, the human is still more efficient. On a time to learn these skills... going from zero (computer rolls off assembly line) to mastery, the computer wins. Actually maybe the computer wins even on the caloric level, if you consider all the energy that was required to get the human to that point (and all the humans that didn't get to that point, bu…
But the computer certainly does not win on the amount of training samples required.
The human is at the same level as the computer now for Go, but the computer has had much more training samples as Lee Sedol could process in his lifetime.
The next step is to reduce the training time/samples for the computer to get the same performance.
Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches
#189I'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. O…
> 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 :) so, Milli VanAIlli? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli_Vanilli )
Nice catch, that would be the perfect working title for the project :)
Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches
#190Earlier 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.
> Give it ten years and, between algorithmic optimizations and advances in processing, you'll have an unbeatable Go app on your phone. I find this overly optimistic because of the huge amount of power required to run the Go application. Remember, we're getting closer and closer to the theoretical lower limit in the size of silicon chips, which is around 4nm (that's about a dozen silicon atoms). That's a 3-4x improvem…
Your making the same assumption people made about computing in the 50s, then 70s, then 90s, etc.