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

391–400 of 596 posts

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

#391

Post by _vk_ »

wrsh07 wrote: post #341
Eliezer wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Citation needed.] I for one did not say to not worry, and I bet $1500 vs. $2250 on Sedol winning the match before getting cold feet and arbing my outstanding bets down to $400 vs. $700.

Can't you just look at the creators of the program? Demis says he certainly does not worry about a "terminator" or "ex machina" style scenario and also predicted they would win: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34266425 Beyond that, it seems reasonable to call for discussion about how AI is used [as he also does in that article].

>Demis says he certainly does not worry about a "terminator" or "ex machina" style scenario

Neither does the Friendly AI crowd.

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

#392

Post by hosh »

hosh wrote: post #370
sethbannon wrote: post #7

I was at the 2003 match of Garry Kasparov vs Deep Junior -- the strongest chess player of all time vs what was at that point the strongest chess playing computer in history. Kasparov drew that match, but it was clear it was the last stand of homo sapiens in the man vs machine chess battle. Back then, people took solace in the game of Go. Many boldly and confidently predicted we wouldn't see a computer beat the Go wor…

The 2003 match was a brute force approach. AlphaGo's architecture resembles much closer to how humans think and learn. I initially learned Go to be able to have some chance of an AI. I then had some transformative experiences that coincided with my early kyu learning of basic Go lessons. On of the big lessons in Go is to learn how to let go of something. Taking solace in anything on the Go board is one of the blocks…

And just to emphasize the big point here:

The AlphaGo that beat the 2p European champion five months ago was not as strong as the AlphaGo that beat Lee Sedol (9p). I don't think this was just the AlphaGo team throwing more hardware. I think they had been constantly running the self-training during the intervening months so that AlphaGo was improving itself.

If that is so, then the big thing here isn't that AlphaGo is the first AI to win an official match with the currently world's strongest Go player. It's that within less than half a year, AlphaGo was able to learn and grow to go from challenging a 2p to challenging the world's strongest player. Think about that.

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

#393

Post by areyousure »

sethbannon wrote: post #7

I was at the 2003 match of Garry Kasparov vs Deep Junior -- the strongest chess player of all time vs what was at that point the strongest chess playing computer in history. Kasparov drew that match, but it was clear it was the last stand of homo sapiens in the man vs machine chess battle. Back then, people took solace in the game of Go. Many boldly and confidently predicted we wouldn't see a computer beat the Go wor…

> Many boldly and confidently predicted we wouldn't see a computer beat the Go world champion in our lifetimes.

Can anyone provide some written references to this effect? Last time I searched (extensively), I couldn't really find anyone saying this.

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

#394

Post by jscahefer »

geebee wrote: post #387

Terrific accomplishment. Just a question to throw out there - does anyone feel like statements like this one "But the game [go] is far more complex than chess, and playing it requires a high level of feeling and intuition about an opponent’s next moves." … seem to show a lack of understanding of both go and chess? I understand there may be some cross-sports trash talking, but chess, played at a high level by humans ,…

think of it this way: The search space for chess is much smaller, so we can lean very heavily on brute forcing in our A.I. implementations.

The search space for Go is much larger, so while brute force searches are critical in tight fighting, and in endgame play, something more has to happen to play go well in the middle game.

Chess fell to a much earlier generation of A.I. While Go held out until A.I. as a field had advanced as well several generations/decades as well.

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

#395

Post by zardo »

geebee wrote: post #387

Terrific accomplishment. Just a question to throw out there - does anyone feel like statements like this one "But the game [go] is far more complex than chess, and playing it requires a high level of feeling and intuition about an opponent’s next moves." … seem to show a lack of understanding of both go and chess? I understand there may be some cross-sports trash talking, but chess, played at a high level by humans ,…

In suppose the defence of the statement is that in chess intuition is used by humans, but not required for a computer. In go the computer needs it too.

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

#396

Post by simonh »

Mangalor wrote: post #361
fma wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know the goal post of Turing test has never moved.

Chatbots can already beat the turing test.

Chatbots ate trivially easy to beat. Just try teaching it a simple game and ask it to play it with you. Basically any questions that require it to form a mental model of something and mutate or interrogate the model state.

Many of the chatbot Turing test competitions have heavily rigged rules restricting the kinds of questions you're allowed to ask in order to give the bots a chance.

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

#397

Post by bduerst »

geebee wrote: post #387

Terrific accomplishment. Just a question to throw out there - does anyone feel like statements like this one "But the game [go] is far more complex than chess, and playing it requires a high level of feeling and intuition about an opponent’s next moves." … seem to show a lack of understanding of both go and chess? I understand there may be some cross-sports trash talking, but chess, played at a high level by humans ,…

I can't comment on Go, but with simpler games like Othello it's fairly apparent when your opponent is A.I. driven or human driven, in how they try to move the board position. Even against expert human players.

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

#398

Post by d0m »

hosh wrote: post #392
hosh wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2003 match was a brute force approach. AlphaGo's architecture resembles much closer to how humans think and learn. I initially learned Go to be able to have some chance of an AI. I then had some transformative experiences that coincided with my early kyu learning of basic Go lessons. On of the big lessons in Go is to learn how to let go of something. Taking solace in anything on the Go board is one of the blocks…

And just to emphasize the big point here: The AlphaGo that beat the 2p European champion five months ago was not as strong as the AlphaGo that beat Lee Sedol (9p). I don't think this was just the AlphaGo team throwing more hardware. I think they had been constantly running the self-training during the intervening months so that AlphaGo was improving itself. If that is so, then the big thing here isn't that AlphaGo is…

I think it's fair to say that in the future, people will look back and wonder how it was possible to live without having a good AI.. similar to how we look past at caveman and wonder how they could live without electricity. AI is really just a tool that we leverage, the same was as we leveraged the wheel or electricity.

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

#399

Post by cjbprime »

geebee wrote: post #387

Terrific accomplishment. Just a question to throw out there - does anyone feel like statements like this one "But the game [go] is far more complex than chess, and playing it requires a high level of feeling and intuition about an opponent’s next moves." … seem to show a lack of understanding of both go and chess? I understand there may be some cross-sports trash talking, but chess, played at a high level by humans ,…

No, I think the statement's approximately correct. Chess has an average branching factor of 35, Go has an average branching factor of 250, intuition is required to prune candidate moves in Go in a way that it is only extremely minimally required in Chess.

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

#400

Post by geebee »

jscahefer wrote: post #394
geebee wrote: post #387

Terrific accomplishment. Just a question to throw out there - does anyone feel like statements like this one "But the game [go] is far more complex than chess, and playing it requires a high level of feeling and intuition about an opponent’s next moves." … seem to show a lack of understanding of both go and chess? I understand there may be some cross-sports trash talking, but chess, played at a high level by humans ,…

think of it this way: The search space for chess is much smaller, so we can lean very heavily on brute forcing in our A.I. implementations. The search space for Go is much larger, so while brute force searches are critical in tight fighting, and in endgame play, something more has to happen to play go well in the middle game. Chess fell to a much earlier generation of A.I. While Go held out until A.I. as a field had…

Agreed. The part I object to is the unqualified statement that go requires a high degree of intuition, whereas chess doesn't. As humans play the game, I think it's safe to say that this is generally inaccurate. Both games, for humans, rely very heavily a high degree of intuition.

I would tend to agree that there is something interesting and new at work here, though, in that computers didn't get better than humans at go simply by applying the same brute force algorithm, just with more processing power. It does suggest that at least some of what we previously thought required "intuition" can be modeled through a random forest (I think that's what they're using, if not RF, then some other combination of ML).

Post reply on HN