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

371–380 of 576 posts

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

#371

Post by geophile »

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.

This could equally apply to the bankers -- and the software engineers who enable them -- who crashed the economy in 2008. Go and chess players have contributed much more to the world than these psychopaths.

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

#373

Post by conanbatt »

webscalist wrote: post #148
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…

AlphaGo did paradigm shifting moves.

That did not happen. He played a few unexpected moves but this games would have little to no impact in terms of modern Go theory.

Other than the kake(shoulder hit on the right) the game might have been a regular top-prop game.

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

#374

Post by JabavuAdams »

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.

Is there a non-dystopian way we can do this? The immediate problems seem to be bandwidth of communication and ability to quickly generate shared culture and jargon.

Are Bridgewater Capital's employees Ray Dalio's focused?

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

#375

Post by TillE »

criddell wrote: post #287
jcrei wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Music is a much easier problem (tight structure, lots of existing data to quickly analyze), and the animation bit is already being pretty thoroughly explored by procedural generation in games. You'd still need a "director" to pick shots, but most of the other pieces are nearly in place. We have algorithms that can create new environments, and design and animate new characters.

But generating a coherent narrative, and good writing to "implement" that narrative. These are huge problems which - as far as I'm aware - would require major breakthroughs to achieve. Machine translation is still utter garbage, and that's fairly straightforward work. We're nowhere near an AI which actually understands language.

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

#377

Post by astazangasta »

kowdermeister wrote: post #370
astazangasta wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> We made this, and it is not an intelligence, it is a series of mathematical optimization functions You can say the same about your mind too which is a bunch of optimization nodes. If something is intelligent, does it matter if it's evolved in nature or created by a species who is evolved in nature? > In the future I hope that this research will move more towards models that provide interpretable results I think it'…

It's a bit precious I think to say that a human is a "bunch of optimization nodes". I can write code to create a CNN, and I can draw a graph of how it operates on a piece of paper. We can't even decode a few million rat neurons the same way.

A CNN is a pure mathematical function - if you want, you could write it down that way. Given a set of inputs, it will always produce the same output. We don't call a linear regression model an "intelligence", a CNN is no different.

Of course I agree that humans are built up of billions of tiny machines like this, but let's appreciate the vast difference in scale.

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

#378

Post by cjbprime »

conanbatt wrote: post #275
taneq wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you can term them as "clear mistakes" when the game is playing at a higher level than any of us meatbags. In this case (according to DeepMind) it's no different to a racing driver backing off the pace in the last few laps if they have a big lead - it's better to guarantee a win than to win by a large margin.

You might be confusing correctness with relevance. You can pass at the last move and lose 1 point, but if your lead is 5, its the same win-result but not the same count-result. Well, that would be a mistake by all accounts, even if AlphaGo made it. Some of the moves AlphaGo played both in this game and the previous one are very definite mistakes, but they were irrelevant to the difference in the game.

> Well, that would be a mistake by all accounts, even if AlphaGo made it.

It is only a mistake to your human biases. AlphaGo literally has no conception of the margin of a win. It doesn't care either way how many points it wins by, as long as the win percentage is maximized.

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

#379

Post by conanbatt »

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".

Go is a lot more psychological and emotional than playing tic-tac-toe. Its a strategy game, which undecided outcomes, where ones style and vision changes how you play and see the game.

The computer was able to overcome the computational difficulty humans compensated with abstractions and strategic concepts. We still use those to understand whats going on in the game, but the computer is oblivious to them and only uses a tactical view of it.

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

#380

Post by the_af »

xiaq wrote: post #359
the_af wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

In general, I don't have a problem with your opinion for all human endeavors. I readily accept that many of them can be optimized and automated, indeed freeing humankind to pursue worthier goals.

I'm specifically objecting to your notion of art.

The advertisement industry is not a good analogy. It can indeed be improved, possibly by automated means. In contrast, the progression from "good" to "better" art doesn't work like that -- if it even exists at all! What is your measure of quality, anyway? Complexity? But sometimes minimalism is preferred in art. Maybe how many people like it? It doesn't work either; a lot of people like stuff that is not enjoyed by the majority.

When is art "better"? How can it be "improved"?

PS: the Sci-Fi market is already flooded by below-average human writers, so we don't need an AI to picture this nightmare scenario of good SF writers struggling to sell their books :P

Post reply on HN