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

AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

gogameguru.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 576 posts

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

#251

Post by megalodon »

fhe wrote: post #239

As someone who studied AI in college and am a reasonably good amateur player, I have been following the matches between Lee and AlphaGo. AlphaGo plays some unusual moves that go clearly against any classically trained Go players. Moves that simply don't quite fit into the current theories of Go playing, and the world's top players are struggling to explain what's the purpose/strategy behind them. I've been giving it…

I think an important point was brought up by the Google engineer in the beginning of the game: Humans usually consider moves that put them ahead by a greater margin and base their strategies on that, while computers don't have that bias.

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

#252

Post by Confusion »

bnegreve wrote: post #65
Confusion wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Lee Sedol was the top ranked player?

Even if he is now, there is a probability that people will learn how to beat AlphaGo. In a sense this is unfair: alphaGo was trained with a lot of human data, but AFAIK Lee Sedol is playing AI for the first time.

The probability that any human player will learn to beat state of the art chess engines is zero (at least until we have humans with biologically or electronically augmented brains). There was a very small time window in which an expert player could beat chess engines by 'adapting their style'. Do you have reason to believe Go will be any different?

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

#254

Post by ig1 »

fhe wrote: post #239

As someone who studied AI in college and am a reasonably good amateur player, I have been following the matches between Lee and AlphaGo. AlphaGo plays some unusual moves that go clearly against any classically trained Go players. Moves that simply don't quite fit into the current theories of Go playing, and the world's top players are struggling to explain what's the purpose/strategy behind them. I've been giving it…

AlphaGo is essentially built on the work that IBM did on TD-Gammon (a reinforcement learning backgammon player) in the 90s.

Pretty much the same thing happened with TD-Gammon with it playing unconventional moves, in the longer term humans ended up adopting some of TD-Gammon's tactics once they understood how they played out, it wouldn't be surprising to see the same happen with Go.

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

#255

Post by EliRivers »

boucher wrote: post #246
EliRivers wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no child here. There is a deterministic set of calculations. The developers created a deterministic set of calculations, and then executed those calculations. AlphaGo is not a child. AlphaGo is a set of deterministic calculations, defined and created by some people. Your question about humans and their children is irrelevant. There is no child here. In this flawed analogy, the "parents" are the developers, a…

And yet the operative fact is that a human could not execute those calculations in a lifetime.

So what? Doesn't change the facts. There is no child here. There is a set of deterministic calculations written by some people, and executed.

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

#256

Post by bad_user »

avar wrote: post #176
eru wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still have the Turing test.

The Turing test is a really narrow "can you act like a human" test of intelligence, not a general intelligence test.

That's a point of concern for using the Turing Test to assess the intelligence of a computer, but that's only because the computer has to also be trained to expose human-like features that are considered to be unintelligent.

But on one hand, in order to have a shot at passing the Turing Test, a computer has to first be able to understand and speak human language. And that's pretty damn hard actually.

Yes we can deploy statistical methods, deep learning or what have you for classification, feature extraction and so on, but natural language is context rich and ambiguous. NLP isn't a conscious process for us either, but our brains are capable to disambiguate effortlessly. And a big part of that is also the rich (human) experience we gain while growing up. Being able to speak natural language is the one big trait that separates us from animals. It's why we can cheat death, because our children can learn from the acquired knowledge of all of their ancestors.

This is different from playing Chess at least. With chess you can deploy smart algorithms, but in the end it's still a raw search for good moves in the space of all possible moves, while giving up on branches with a bad score. Raw search is what computers have always been good at. That's not really possible with NLP, because at least with chess your vocabulary is very limited and for calculating good moves you don't need extensive knowledge about the world we live in.

Computers will surely be able to do that in the future and that will be a major milestone towards "true AI", but for now computers cannot do it.

On the Turing Test, some features considered as being unintelligent, like the tendency for lying, or being sensitive to insults are actually evolutionary traits, that have arguably helped humans to survive. So while emulating some human traits will be counter productive, a "true AI" will be concerned with survival and as a consequence will end up doing whatever it takes.

So while passing the Turing Test may not be enough, not passing the Turing Test is a sign that the computer is unintelligent.

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

#257

Post by astrofinch »

fhe wrote: post #239

As someone who studied AI in college and am a reasonably good amateur player, I have been following the matches between Lee and AlphaGo. AlphaGo plays some unusual moves that go clearly against any classically trained Go players. Moves that simply don't quite fit into the current theories of Go playing, and the world's top players are struggling to explain what's the purpose/strategy behind them. I've been giving it…

There's also the fact that some of the unexpected moves were apparently more about solidifying against a loss than increasing the magnitude of a win. Which has its own kind of eerie implication: since AIs (like all computer programs) do what you say, not what you mean, the "intelligent species" can sometimes work really intelligently towards a goal that wasn't quite what you had in mind. (Gets especially interesting for any AlphaHuman/AlphaCEO/AlphaPresident successors that are given goals more complicated & nuanced than "maximize Go win probability regardless of ending score". BTW, if you haven't already read the Wait But Why series on the future of AI, I recommend it: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolu...)

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

#258

Post by hughperkins »

jacquesm wrote: post #111
zodiac wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it ensured that this is a fair game given the time constraints? Both players get the same time controls, seems fair to me But if you're saying humans might fare better against computers in a game with a longer time control, I suspect that's true

Time is not a good measure when competing with parallel hardware. Joules would be a much better one.

This is very insightful. Id like to mod you up ten times if i could :)

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

#259

Post by Jach »

eru wrote: post #147
lmm wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll keep using the technology. They probably won't want to play Go again - they'll have little to gain and everything to lose - and I suspect most of the possible audience will lose interest.

I'd bet they'll probably continue playing. They are not using any special purpose hardware, and they already have the software. However, they won't make it such a big PR focus. (And even if they stop, other people will implement the same ideas.)

Putting on a conspiracy hat for pretend, the whole thing is clearly all a big PR scheme to get Google the brand better name recognition and improve their position in Asian markets.

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

#260

Post by VladKovac »

gsklee wrote: post #156
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…

On a more realistic side note... Professional Go players devote decades in training ever since their youth, giving up normal educations and lots of other more lucrative opportunities for their lives. It's very easy to imagine their frustrations now that their life-time devotion actually means nothing in front of the AI. It's an upright denial to the way of life they so chose and devoted. IMHO Google should donate the…

Isn't this a good thing? Why are high IQ people devoting their entire lives to a game? Maybe this will make them shift their priorities to solving problems that only really smart humans (like them) can solve.
Post reply on HN