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

351–360 of 576 posts

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

#351

Post by awl130 »

criddell wrote: post #332
awl130 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure what will happen. Creative works aren't generally fungible. If I order tickets to go see Jack White play, I'm not going to be tempted by Nickelback tickets that are half the price.

you're confusing performance with the underlying intellectual property (e.g., the published song)

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

#352

Post by cli »

VladKovac wrote: post #260
gsklee wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At the root of it, they earn a living by being entertainment. This can be applied to any of the arts or sports. Why are smart people making movies, writing fiction, making music? I think these are the sorts of things that make life worth living.

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

#353

Post by Johnwbh »

edko wrote: post #314
saalweachter wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What you describe is a push situation: the books come out and you have to try to keep up to speed with their release. It could however, also be a pull: whenever you feel like reading an amazing book, you just ask the AI to generate one for you, optionally continuing the last story you read.

You could also potentially specify constraints on a book and have it generated for you, e.g. generate me a book about a gay dutch vampire in the 1800s. Could open up a whole new concept of hyper speciaised books tailored for individuals particular desires and preferences.

The practical problem with this is that, as I understand it, the deep learning system needs a pretty large data set to work with to infer rules from. You can do this with go because there is a constraint on legal moves and a deterministic win condition, but given how vast the number of potential novels is (If we count the space of all ten thousand word collections of grammatically acceptable sentences) the existing number of novels may no be enough to infer a pattern. (Though possibly you could split the problem up by separately doing the natural language processing and abstractin out the plot)

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

#354

Post by z0r »

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 AlphaGo is playing very natural go! The 5th move shoulder hit that is the subject of so much commentary would fit into the theory of go that players like Takemiya espouse. It has chosen to emphasize influence and speed and has not been afraid to give solid territory early in the games so far. It's very exciting play but not inhuman play, and if professionals are allowed to train with AlphaGo it will surely usher in the next decade's style of play. Don't forget that the game has changed every 10 years for the past 100 years, it should not be surprising that it is continuing to change now!

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

#355

Post by Jobbers »

hitekker wrote: post #343
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 want to thank you for this comment. It's this kind of subtle, low-key, informed speculation that generates good, hard sci-fi concepts, which are absolutely relevant to my WIP novel. "oh what if the machine suddenly came alive!?" has been done 1000 times. But such concepts like: a computer can detect and act patterns which we cannot, in ways that are almost, if not possibly intelligence, are magnitudes more believab…

Is it about a tyrannical super-AI that maintains power over the human race by strategically releasing butterflies into the wild at specific times and locations?

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

#356

Post by dmoy »

Ensorceled wrote: post #322
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 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 bett…

I would also posit that lefties' advantage basically disappears once you get to a certain level in fencing. Past some point, it's basically all just footwork anyways, and your orientation doesn't change the distance of your target (foil and saber at least, can't comment on epee as they seem to just kinda bounce in place a lot even at Olympic level).

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

#357

Post by statsaresimple »

astazangasta wrote: post #338
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…

>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. It's not like this at all; let's not do this sort of thing. Humans are inveterate myth makers (viz. your description of how people conceive the Go board as army units), and our impositions on the world are easily confused…

As a follow up to your idea, we should explore two paths: first create the most powerful AI, second create subsystems devised to be interpretable. The powerful method could be used to train the interpretable method, that is we need an interpreter to translate from machine AI to human AI, and interpretable systems provide a middle ground.

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

#358

Post by crispyambulance »

daveguy wrote: post #231
crispyambulance wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose in the era of Bobby Fischer, chess was proxy for superpower one-upmanship. That's long gone, but Chess as a game is still doing fine and I expect that it will be the same for Go. We still have chess tournaments, super-star grandmasters and circus freaks (people who can play blindfolded against multiple opponents). And, yes, computers can easily smoke all but elite players. Why should Go be different?

And, yes, computers can easily smoke all players. FTFY In chess the top engines are rated hundreds of ELO points above Magnus Carlsen (top human). No top ranked human vs computer match has been publicised in over 5 years because humans are thoroughly trounced. There are cyborg matches which are interesting. Human + Computer vs Human + Computer because gameplay techniques are considered different. Humans still depend…

I see. What one means by "computer" is always a moving target. Deep Blue was a specially prepared supercomputer from 20 years ago. Apparently, today's top chess software running on a half-decent off-the-shelf machine could crush Deep Blue.

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

#359

Post by xiaq »

the_af wrote: post #349
oldmanjay wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You confused the problem statement. What is being solved is "how do we created an AI that can produce art" not "art"

Maybe. That's definitely not how I read it. Example: > 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 to produce an even higher form of literature. To me this seems to be claiming that what we have now is a form of "lower" literature, to be tackled by AI so that humans can produce "an even higher form of literature". But, of co…

> To me this seems to be claiming that what we have now is a form of "lower" literature, to be tackled by AI so that humans can produce "an even higher form of literature". But, of course, literature isn't graded in a scale of "low" to "high". (Well, there is lowbrow and highbrow, but that's something else).

Being "low" or "high" is all dynamic. We already have a good example: the advertisement industry. When a way of advertising your product first came out, it is fresh and captures people eyes. As more and more advertisers follow suit, it became bad ad, and advertisers are forced to find new ways to attract people. Basically the criteria for good ads changes all the time, but that doesn't kill the ads industry.

Now imagine if AIs can write sci-fis that are "good" according to today's criteria. That would mean there will be loads of "good" sci-fis in the market, and people soon get tired of it. Now sci-fi authors have to come up with more creative ways of writing good sci-fis.

So AIs being able to produce literature means more variations and faster iteration in literature style, much like the ads industry today. I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing, but it is certainly far away from the death of literature.

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

#360

Post by colanderman »

philh wrote: post #306
colanderman wrote: post #268

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?

The AI is based on the minimax algorithm [1]. Because of the way Minimax works, the only way for a possible next move to be designated a "win" is if it is a guaranteed win. (The tree is (effectively) fully explored, and the opponent is given the benefit of the doubt in the face of incomplete information.) So, if there are multiple such winning moves, and care is not taken to distinguish the "magnitude" of the win, the AI will choose one arbitrarily.

I suppose that, in Hive, it is more likely that a path to a win is longer rather than shorter. Hence, when my AI was arbitrarily choosing "winning" moves, it statistically chose those that drew the game out.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax

Post reply on HN