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

381–390 of 576 posts

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

#381

Post by grayclhn »

caskance wrote: post #279
ap22213 wrote: post #262

Earlier 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.

Not really. The alternative is like driving your car into a lake because the GPS told you to.

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

#382

Post by astazangasta »

statsaresimple wrote: post #357
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…

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.

I think training one function to approximate another function wouldn't help much; we'd inevitably lose the subtleties of the higher-order function and any insights that come with it. If we could train a decision tree to do what a CNN does and then interpret the outcome, why not use decision trees in the first place?

I think the answer must be in figuring out how to decompose the black box of a CNN - it is, after all, just a set of simple algebraic operations at work, and we should be able to get something out of inspection.

I have to imagine Hinton et al. have done work in this regard, but this is far afield for me, so if it exists I don't know it.

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

#383

Post by saalweachter »

Johnwbh wrote: post #353
edko wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fro…

Ignoring the training problem, apply it to movies: I'd like to see this movie, but starring these actors, directed by this director, with a soundtrack by this composer/band.

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

#384

Post by hutzlibu »

reacweb wrote: post #305
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…

In go, the purpose is to have more territory than the opponent. There is no point in humiliating the opponent by having a big advantage. I think the aim of the strange moves was to increase the confidence of the program in its advance, not to increase the advance.

But you could indeed humiliate the opponent by actually capturing ALL of his stones. But that won't happen, if the enemy knows at least the basic concepts ... Still, if you play well, you cover much ground - while trying to supress the area of the enemy and even crushing him. But classic go is nice in a way, that it gives weaker opponents a start bonus of some stones - so the game is balanced and domination usually won't happen ...

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

#385

Post by cjbprime »

reacweb wrote: post #305
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…

In go, the purpose is to have more territory than the opponent. There is no point in humiliating the opponent by having a big advantage. I think the aim of the strange moves was to increase the confidence of the program in its advance, not to increase the advance.

> I think the aim of the strange moves was to increase the confidence of the program in its advance, not to increase the advance.

Absolutely. Also worth noting that it may be simply unable to distinguish between good and bad moves if both outcomes lead to a win, since it has no conception of the margin of victory being important.

So it might not be that it increased win probability, but that both paths led to 100% win probability and it started playing "stupidly" due to lacking a score-maximizing bias.

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

#386

Post by colanderman »

reacweb wrote: post #305
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…

In go, the purpose is to have more territory than the opponent. There is no point in humiliating the opponent by having a big advantage. I think the aim of the strange moves was to increase the confidence of the program in its advance, not to increase the advance.

Sorry, I didn't mean the intent would be to humiliate, just the appearance.

Humans, I think, have the natural instinct to "hedge" themselves in games like go and chess, by creating positional/material advantages now to offset unknowns later. Of course, that advantage becomes useless in the end game, when all that matters is the binary win/lose.

An AI, which may have a deeper/broader view of the game tree than its human opponent (despite evaluating individual position strength in roughly the same manner), may see less of a need to "hedge" now, and instead spend moves creating more of a guaranteed advantage later (as you suggest). And indeed, my experience with my AI is that during the endgame (in which an AI generally knows with certainty the eventual outcome of each of its moves), it tends to retain the smallest advantage possible to win, preferring instead to spend moves to win sooner.

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

#387

Post by grayclhn »

saalweachter wrote: post #286
cubano wrote: 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…

So, the internet.

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

#388

Post by ktRolster »

thom wrote: post #266
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…

I follow neither Go nor martial arts, but there seem to be some interesting parallels here with some emotional reactions to what appears to be the relative weakness of karate or kung fu versus grappling in UFC. The mystical aura of these martial arts as traditionally practised for hundreds of years suddenly falls away in the face of what often seems like brute force.

In fairness, UFC fairly severely limits what can be done. To begin with, they use gloves, and things like eye gouges and finger locks are illegal.

Because strategies like "ripping out someone's intestines" are illegal, boxing and wrestling have an unfair advantage because they don't have to worry about that stuff to begin with. For more realistic fighting situations, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_tai

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

#389

Post by bpicolo »

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #303
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 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 have been watching Myungwan Kim's commentary for the games - and it seems notable that a few moves he finds very peculiar immediately when they are made, he will later point out to as achi…

I would imagine it's absolutely thinking that far ahead. That said, it can't possibly search every possible solution, just needs to find an adequate one

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

#390

Post by CyberDildonics »

astrofinch wrote: post #257
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…

> the "intelligent species" can sometimes work really intelligently towards a goal that wasn't quite what you had in mind.

That's called programming

Post reply on HN