Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so?
There was one move that literally caused the 9th dan commentator to do a triple-take. It apparently turned out to be super effective.
Specifically, move 37 at O10: https://youtu.be/l-GsfyVCBu0?t=1h17m45s
AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
281–290 of 576 posts
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#282Does anyone notice the lack of ko[1] in the games? In all 7 public games (5 with Fan and 2 with Lee) there isn't any ko. This is unusual. If we still can't see ko fights in the following 3 games...I would suspect that AlphaGo isn't able to handle ko well enough yet, and Google asked Lee and Fan to not initialize ko fights in the games.
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#283Someone 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…
Art is, mostly, domain of knowledge not yet claimed by science. When a technique turns art into science, it means that humans are ready to tackle even harder problems. Think about medicine before and after microscopes. Holy art turned into boring science: huge win for human race. If an AI won the next Hugo award, I would be rejoiced. It wouldn't mean the end of literature at all; it would mean that humans are ready t…
I disagree. Art is mostly not a "problem" to be "solved" by science. Art is not graded in a scale of difficulty, from "easy" to "harder" art that mankind has to gradually reach.
Literature is not a lower form of art that we must strive to automate so that we can dedicate ourselves to more "complex" forms.
You are confusing the unknown with art.
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes optimal solutions don't make sense to the human mind because they're not intuitive. For instance, I developed a system that used machine learning and linear solver models to spit out a series of actions to take in response to some events. The actions were to be acted on by humans who were experts in the field. In fact, they were the ones from whom we inferred the relevant initial heuristics. Everyday, I wou…
The only frightening part of your story is the insecurity of the human experts.
Or, maybe, there could have been bugs in the code.
If I'm an expert in some domain and a computer is telling me to do something completely different ("Trust me--just drive over the river!") I'm certainly going to question the result.
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
AlphaGo maximises the probability of winning, and not the margin by which it does. So those "mistakes" yesterday turned out to be fortifying moves because AlphaGo was confident of a win. And similarly today the weird moves were interesting because they perhaps indicated that AlphaGo thought it was ahead.
Yeah, that explanation from the DeepMind team member today put a whole new spin on some of the 'odd' late game moves. It doesn't 'care' about about margins so it will shore up its odds of a win in preference to increasing the margin if it wins.
that's very interesting exlanation.. do you have the link to the interview of the DeepMind team?
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#286Someone 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…
> Now imagine the winning author of the next Hugo Award turns out to be an AI, how unsettling would that be. I think that would be pretty awesome and amazing, to be honest.
I think it'd be terrifying.
Imagine the best book you've ever read. Entrancing, enlightening, cathartic. You reach the end, and it's ... perfect. Oh hey, a sequel. Wow, the sequel is just as good as the first book. It expands upon it without diminishing the original -- you feel better, more complete for having read it. Wait, is that a third book in the series? Wow, it's even better than the first two! A fourth -- well, maybe you should go to work now, it's Monday, but the book is so good. Calling in sick once won't hurt anything.
Imagine a perfect series of books, published without end, each better than the last, a new one coming out weekly ... daily ... hourly ...
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now imagine the winning author of the next Hugo Award turns out to be an AI, how unsettling would that be. I've been thinking precisely about that. I think a book written by a machine will make the NYT bestseller list within our lifetimes (I would give it a 75% chance within 10 years, but that's just a gut feeling).
But aren't the winners of literary awards sort of subjective? I mean, chess and Go are based on beating a direct opponent based on a set of known rules. But getting an award for the best book that is picked by a judge means that you have to hit all the right notes in all the right places for that specific judge or panel. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it's more subjective
Literary awards are definitely subjective, but I don't think that matters. I'm just saying I think an AI will write a book that a significant portion of the population thinks is very good. The first "good" AI book will likely be from some formulaic genre (think 50 Shades of Gray) that most people think is trash, but enough people will like it to legitimately propel it to the top of the sales charts.
I also think my kids will live long enough to see an animated movie that is conceived of, written, scored, and animated by an AI.
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
AlphaGo maximises the probability of winning, and not the margin by which it does. So those "mistakes" yesterday turned out to be fortifying moves because AlphaGo was confident of a win. And similarly today the weird moves were interesting because they perhaps indicated that AlphaGo thought it was ahead.
Yeah, that explanation from the DeepMind team member today put a whole new spin on some of the 'odd' late game moves. It doesn't 'care' about about margins so it will shore up its odds of a win in preference to increasing the margin if it wins.
I had a feeling after yesterday's win that people might be tempted to call it a close win by AlphaGo and predict that Lee could overtake it with a bit better play, but that we'd find no matter how good Lee played, AlphaGo would adjust and continue to come out just a bit more on top. It's actually probably really hard to tell how much better AlphaGo is because it probably plays quite conservatively overall and hides a lot of potential strength.
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#289Does anyone know of a site/video, where I can just see the game moves without commentary and thinking pauses?
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#290As 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…
Sometimes optimal solutions don't make sense to the human mind because they're not intuitive. For instance, I developed a system that used machine learning and linear solver models to spit out a series of actions to take in response to some events. The actions were to be acted on by humans who were experts in the field. In fact, they were the ones from whom we inferred the relevant initial heuristics. Everyday, I wou…
What you said about the expert calling something a bug reminded me of how the commentator in the first game would see a move by alphaGo and say that it was wrong. He did this multiple times for alphaGo but never once questioned the human's move. Yet even with all those "wrong" moves alphaGo won. Didn't watch the second game, so not sure if he kept doing that.