Live data from Hacker News

AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

gogameguru.com

321–330 of 576 posts

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

#321

Does anybody know how many CPUs and GPUs they're using this time? It was 1200+ and 700+ in October against Fan Hui. It would be interesting to know if AlphaGo became better only because the extra learning or also because of extra hardware. I googled for that and didn't find anything but I could have missed the right source.

Apparently 1920 CPUs and 280 GPUs according to The Economist.

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

#322
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 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.

Could AlphaGO be winning in a way similar to left handed fencers having an advantage over right handers by wrong footing them rather than simply being better? Would giving Lee more chance to see this style give him a chance to catch up?

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

#323

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…

> 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).

the first AI to replicate the success of: an oscar-winning movie; a pulitzer prize novel; a tony award winning musical-- will all at once devalue the IP value of all creative content worldwide by a measurable degree. it will be like watching a global stock market crash in terms of valuation. but, as in chess, and as in go, humans will probably learn from this AI and emulate it as well.

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

#324
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About a year ago I wrote an AI to play the board game "Hive" (shares some similarities with chess). Because I scored all wins equally, it behaved almost exactly like this. It would simply try to minimize my advantage while always keeping open the possibility for it to win, almost like a cat toying with prey. It never actually would make the winning move – however obvious – until it had no other options! I fixed this…

> It never actually would make the winning move – however obvious – until it had no other options! I'm confused. Why would 'make the winning move' not be the way to maximise probability of winning?

Usually it's because as it searches the move tree, it finds ways for the opponent to maximize their own winning probability and so has to hedge against that. In minimax games sometimes the evaluator finds a long chain of moves that leads to a win, and once it finds that, doesn't necessarily bother trying to find a shorter one. It can be frustrating to tune that out.

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

#326
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 wonder if this is similar to how musket battles were fought in the american civil war era, with soldiers lining up across each other in a battlefield and taking turns shooting at each other. I hear they did this because the rifles were very inaccurate so it made sense to use a bunch of them at the same time as an area-effect weapon, in effect like a gigantic shotgun.

Until someone got better weapons and suddenly the "rules" of the battlefield that dictated standing in lines across each other made no sense to follow anymore because the original principles that dictated those rules to be good were not valid anymore.

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

#327
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…

> It's like another intelligent species opening up a new way of looking at the world.

And this is just the beginning with AlphaGo. As we keep on training Deep Learning systems for other domains, we'll realise how differently they approach problems and solve them. It'll, in turn, help us in adapting these different perspectives and applying them to solve other problems as well.

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

#328
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 like your statement: "It's both exciting and eerie. It's like another intelligent species opening up a new way of looking at the world (at least for this very specific domain). and much to our surprise, it's a new way that's more powerful than ours." I think this will the theme of our future interactions with AIs. We simply can't imagine in advance how they will see and interact with the world. There will be many s…

That quote reminds me of "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" by James P. Hogan. One of the subplots is that humans can communicate because of shared experience. We all must eat, sleep, breathe, seek shelter, etc. Communication with an alien or artificial intelligence may be difficult or even impossible without this shared framework.

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

#329

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…

> 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).

The first time it happens, it'll likely be released to the public under a human pseudonym, as a turing test for the people.

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

#330
post #206

Earlier 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 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 -- wel…

I've lived that scenario, and the book was called heroin, so imagining it isn't really hard for me.

In the end all life is is one choice after another, and making good ones over bad mostly leads to a happier life.

Post reply on HN