AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5 • Hacker News Board

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#131

Post by andrepd » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 11:06 AM UTC

Yuioup wrote: post #127

Cookingboy wrote: post #116

Someone somewhere asked why a lot of people in the Go community is taking this in a somewhat hard way, here is my hypothesis: Go, unlike Chess, has deep mytho attached to it. Throughout the history of many Asian countries it's seen as the ultimate abstract strategy game that deeply relies on players' intuition, personality, worldview. The best players are not described as "smart", they are described as "wise". I thin…

I liken Go to a real-time strategy game. Essentially a game of StarCraft 2 can have an infinite set of 'moves'. When an player wins at StarCraft 2, you can argue that he is wise too. Right?

Starcraft 2 is less than a decade old. Go goes back three millenia.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#132

Post by aardvark179 » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 11:07 AM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #129

ekianjo wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure that calculating the raw number of positions is a good indication of complexity at a given point. What if most positions are obviously junk in go while they are more difficult to assess in chess? Not saying this is the case in this particular example but thats a possibility in theory.

> What if most positions are obviously junk in go while they are more difficult to assess in chess? I wouldn't go with most (because I don't know about that), but many of these boards would also be either impossible to achieve (in a normal game) or illegal.

The 10^170 figure is legal positions. It's about 1% of possible board positions. How many of those are sensible is another matter.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#133

Post by eru » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 11:07 AM UTC

Yuioup wrote: post #127

Cookingboy wrote: post #116

Someone somewhere asked why a lot of people in the Go community is taking this in a somewhat hard way, here is my hypothesis: Go, unlike Chess, has deep mytho attached to it. Throughout the history of many Asian countries it's seen as the ultimate abstract strategy game that deeply relies on players' intuition, personality, worldview. The best players are not described as "smart", they are described as "wise". I thin…

I liken Go to a real-time strategy game. Essentially a game of StarCraft 2 can have an infinite set of 'moves'. When an player wins at StarCraft 2, you can argue that he is wise too. Right?

Just as much as you can argue that for Go. Interestingly enough, the top chess player Magnus Carlsen insists that he's not particularly bright.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#134

Post by pavelrub » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 11:07 AM UTC

davelondon wrote: post #91

Let's compare Go and Chess. We all know that Go is more complex that Chess, but how much more? There's 10^50 atoms in the planet Earth. That's a lot. Let's put a chess board in each of them. We'll count each possible permutation of each of the chess boards as a separate position. That's a lot, right? There's 10^50 atoms, and 10^40 positions in each chess board so that gives us 10^90 total positions. That's a lot of p…

This doesn't seem to be the main reason why Go is harder than chess for computers. It was noted that even in 9x9 Go, with a comparable branching factor to Chess, traditional Go programs are still no stronger than on big boards. The main difficulty for Go is that it is much harder to evaluate board positions. So in Chess the depth of the search can be significantly reduced by using a reasonable evaluation function, whereas in Go no such function seems to exist.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#135

Post by eru » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 11:09 AM UTC

imron wrote: post #62

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There were a a few peculiar-seeming moves made by AlphaGo that the commentator found very atypical. Myungwan Kim 9-dan professional (comments on match #1): "She knows everything [...] Unthinkable move for human [...] AlphaGo plays like the god of go" https://youtu.be/6ZugVil2v4w?t=5054

I wonder how long before humans start learning from AlphaGo! I want to see AlphaGo vs AlphaGo :-)

Fan Hui has already learned from AlphaGo. He's been playing matches against her regularly, and (perhaps as a result of that) won _all_ his games in the last European championship.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#136

Post by eru » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 11:10 AM UTC

visarga wrote: post #121

tzs wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seeing the way chess computers have evolved, this won't be far into the future. With chess, there were two breakthroughs. First, there was Deep Blue, which threw massive hardware resources at the problem and achieved world champion level play. That was interesting, of course, but didn't really do anything for human chess, because most humans did not have access to the necessary hardware. The second breakthrough was…

AlphaGo uses much simpler hardware for play than for training. I think the Go associations can afford to run the hardware.

It's only a couple hundred GPUs for training. You can afford to rent that in the cloud for probably a hundred bucks or less per game.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#137

Post by hasenj » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 11:11 AM UTC

Cookingboy wrote: post #116

Someone somewhere asked why a lot of people in the Go community is taking this in a somewhat hard way, here is my hypothesis: Go, unlike Chess, has deep mytho attached to it. Throughout the history of many Asian countries it's seen as the ultimate abstract strategy game that deeply relies on players' intuition, personality, worldview. The best players are not described as "smart", they are described as "wise". I thin…

Actually this AI kind of confirms these myths, since its basis are not in mathematics but in neural networks. While it could be argued to be just math, so is the brain, but that's besides the point. The point is, even the programmers have no idea what the AI is thinking.

The way it picks moves is very similar to how top professionals do.

Intuition is reduced to memories stored vaguely as neural connections.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#138

Post by eru » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 11:11 AM UTC

mmahemoff wrote: post #105

skc wrote: post #49

I find it very interesting that to a layperson, the idea of a computer being able to beat a human at a logic game is pretty much expected and uninteresting. You try and share this story with a non-technical person and they will likely say "Well, duh..it's a computer".

Most people operate on a moving definition of intelligence as "whatever humans can do and machines can't" (thus ruling out AI by definition). If software started writing bestselling novels, it would soon become a "duh that's just what computers do" matter of fact.

We still have the Turing test.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#139

Post by eru » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 11:13 AM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #95

derefr wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all the players will simultaneously consider the same branches A computer-assisted pool of humans might work. Feed each human a board state advanced by 1/2/3/N moves down the decision tree in some direction, and have them evaluate that particular sub-tree. It's a map-reduce problem!

For some reason this made me think of the Focused in A Deepness in the Sky - where real general AI isn't possible [at least where we are] so human minds are harnessed to solve problems in a deeply unpleasant way.

Amazon's Mechanical Turk!

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#140

Post by hasenj » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 11:14 AM UTC

ludamad wrote: post #43

bradley_long wrote: post #35

Human can become tired, emotional and nervous. However, a computer/ software would not have these problems. Especially for Lee, the whole world is looking at him. An "ordinary" human like me won't be able to make the right decisions under this pressure. A great respect to Lee and the Developers of AlphaGo. Good Game!

At the same time, only now are people seeing how its hard for people to play Go against computers. Until AlphaGo I didn't even think computers were close.

Actually computers were already in the top 10 percentile or so. I mean top go playing bots ranked something like 5dan amateur which is very hard to achieve, so it could already defeat most human players.