Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 596 posts

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

#281

Post by rurban »

mathgenius wrote: post #83
tunesmith wrote: post #50

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.

Yeah according to Redmond, it seemed that AlphaGo made a few "mistakes" whereas Sedol made none. And yet AlphaGo came out substantially ahead. So I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps we need to see more in-depth analysis of the moves, but it seems that AlphaGo just out-calculated Sedol.

According to DAVID ORMEROD in his commentary at https://gogameguru.com/alphago-defeats-lee-sedol-game-1/, black (Lee Sedol) made plenty of mistakes from the start to the end, and they were seriously questioning his form. White (AlphaGo) made only a few mistakes in the middle, which allowed Black to catch up a bit, but he had no chance, esp. in the endgame.

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

#282

Post by Super_Jambo »

exDM69 wrote: post #186
taneq wrote: 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.

> 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…

The unbeatable GO app on your phone doesn't have to do the processing locally.

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

#283

Post by jules »

ragebol wrote: post #276
jules wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you count examples? The computer can generate its own examples by playing against itself. So in theory it needs 0 examples. This is not a useful metric at all.

I would count every played game as an example. What I mean is that I am more impressed by anyone of anything that can do a task (go, golf, chess, learning a foreign language, doing the dishes even) well with just a single example, or e.g. an hour of training. Being able to train in solitude is an advantage indeed. You need two humans to do this, but you also need two AlphaGo-instances as well.

Are you going to count all the games that the human played in their head too? What about the learning done in the human brain when sleeping? Do you count that too?

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

#284

Post by afc »

sergiosgc wrote: post #267
exDM69 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

As solid as your argument may be, everyone saw arguments like this over and over. Every single time they were solid. For a time, it was the high frequency noise that would not be manageable (80s), then heat dissipation (90s), then limits on pipeline optimization (00s) and now size constraints on transistors. They were all hard barriers, deemed impossible and all were overcome. I already know that your answer will be:…

This looks like a good example of the Normalcy bias logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias

That previous constraints have been beaten in no way supports the argument that we will beat the laws of physics this time.

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

#285

Post by jules »

rsfern wrote: post #275
jules wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's silly. Why would you want to put human limitations on the computer? We don't artificially put computer limitations on the human.

I don't think it's silly at all. I think you have a good point about this particular contest, but there are plenty of other applications where training data is prohibitively expensive or time-consuming to collect. One way to proceed is to work on making it easier to collect and curate this data, and another is to work on algorithms that require much less data to obtain good performance.

That's precisely my point. This is not a traditional machine learning scenario, and treating it as such is silly.

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

#286

Post by TheTravCav »

exDM69 wrote: post #219
Cyph0n wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your making the same assumption people made about computing in the 50s, then 70s, then 90s, etc.

Please do elaborate. I try to base my assumptions (which I accept may turn out to be completely wrong) on physics and experience in working in semiconductors. I just don't see a 1000x+ decrease in the power required happening in a decade or two without some revolutionary technology I can't even imagine. Is this what you meant? I'm sure most people couldn't imagine modern silicon chips in the 1950s vacuum tube era. Bu…

I feel the same way about the chips reaching their physical limits. But I keep waiting for a new way we use them. We used to just churn out MHz and that was the metric. Then we got hyper-threading, multi-cores, GPU and other specific processors and new ways of programming to go with it all. I imagine we'll see the same. Just like the brain has different areas of processing, I'm hoping we'll see the same in silicon chips. Just like how we offload work from the general purpose cpu to the more efficient purpose build gpu or sound card etcs. Not saying every computer is going to have a GO chip in it, but maybe someday we'll have machine learning processors or who knows what. But yeah the advancements will be new designs and new ways of processing instead of more power.

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

#287

Post by gjm11 »

cthor wrote: post #238
gjm11 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.) Unfortunat…

The tenchess counterargument doesn't work in the context of Elo (from which chain lengths are derived). A has 150 more Elo rating than B in chess. Elo says A has a 2/3 EV on the game result, and B has 1/3. In tenchess, A will get 20/3 points on average and B will get 10/3 points. A will have more points than B in 79% of tenchess games, but the Elo ratings will not change. Elo doesn't consider winning and losing as bi…

I think I wasn't clear enough. Here is how you play a game of tenchess. (1) Play ten games of chess. (2) You get 0 points if you won fewer chess games than your opponent, 1 point if you won more, 1/2 a point if you won the same number.

In particular, you don't get the total number of points you'd have got by playing the chess games individually. You get 0, 1/2, or 1. In particularly particular, A doesn't get any fewer points from a marginal win than from a blowout. (Just as, when playing chess, you don't get fewer points from taking 100 moves to grind out a tiny positional advantage than from a 20-move brilliancy.)

So A and B don't get 20/3 and 10/3 points on average from a game of tenchess; that's the number of "chess points" they get on average, but the average of the number of chess points isn't a thing that actually matters when they're playing tenchess.

(If A wins 2/3 of the time at chess and they never draw, then it turns out that A gets about 0.855 points per tenchess game.)

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

#288

Post by exDM69 »

Super_Jambo wrote: post #282
exDM69 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The unbeatable GO app on your phone doesn't have to do the processing locally.

Yes, but that's just a silly argument and definitely not what GP meant. You can go and play a Go bot on KGS network with your smartphone today.

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

#289

Post by bryanlarsen »

afc wrote: post #284
sergiosgc wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As solid as your argument may be, everyone saw arguments like this over and over. Every single time they were solid. For a time, it was the high frequency noise that would not be manageable (80s), then heat dissipation (90s), then limits on pipeline optimization (00s) and now size constraints on transistors. They were all hard barriers, deemed impossible and all were overcome. I already know that your answer will be:…

This looks like a good example of the Normalcy bias logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias That previous constraints have been beaten in no way supports the argument that we will beat the laws of physics this time.

The previous problems were solved because people were willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to solve them. And they are still spending that kinds of money.

If the normalcy bias was in effect, they wouldn't be spending that money.

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

#290

Post by cgearhart »

I was really hoping to see a more technical discussion than what I found here in the comments. It's too bad that such a cool accomplishment gets reduced to arguments about the implications for an AI apocalypse and "moving the goalposts". This isn't strong AI, and it was at least believed to be possible (albeit incredibly difficult), but it is still a remarkable achievement.

To my mind, this is a really significant achievement not because a computer was able to beat a person at Go, but because the DeepMind team was able to show that deep learning could be used successfully on a complex task that requires more than an effective feature detector, and that it could be done without having all of the training data in advance. Learning how to search the board as part of the training is brilliant.

The next step is extending the technique to domains that are not easily searchable (fortunately for DeepMind, Google might know a thing or two about that), and to extend it to problems where the domain of optimal solutions is less continuous.

Post reply on HN