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

451–460 of 576 posts

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

#451

Post by bad_user »

iopq wrote: post #425
bad_user wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a point of concern for using the Turing Test to assess the intelligence of a computer, but that's only because the computer has to also be trained to expose human-like features that are considered to be unintelligent. But on one hand, in order to have a shot at passing the Turing Test, a computer has to first be able to understand and speak human language. And that's pretty damn hard actually. Yes we can deplo…

Passing the Turing test is not exciting anymore. Computers that act like retards already "passed it". "im so bored this test sux", "i dunno wat are you asking me", "what if ur a bot lol" AND THEN I WOULDN'T ACTUALLY KNOW because some people ARE this stupid

I know this is a semi-joke, but it's worth discussing. While such people are less smart than average or have a deficiency in their education or both, unless you're talking about mentally handicapped people with a medical diagnosis, all normal humans have a conscience, are capable of reasoning, can understand complex symbols, can entertain complex thought, are very good pattern matching machines, can speak natural language and can learn and acquire new skills, which makes them intelligent.

I know the kind of people you're talking about. I have a family member like that. She's not that smart, she failed her baccalaureate, she's semi-illiterate and she probably suffers from ADHD, though a lot has to do with her upbringing. But getting answers like that from such a person means that you're not asking the right questions or the incentive to answer is not there. Give a cash reward to a cash-strapped person and you will never get an answer like "im so bored this test sux".

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

#452

Post by fudged71 »

jpmattia wrote: post #289
hutzlibu wrote: post #269

Does anyone know of a site/video, where I can just see the game moves without commentary and thinking pauses?

Game 1: https://online-go.com/demo/114754 Game 2: https://online-go.com/demo/114161

You have those two links backwards...

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

#453

Post by patejam »

jonbarker wrote: post #443

AI enthusiast and amateur player here: Michael Redmond made a great point yesterday, if the algorithm is only interested in maximizing probability of win and ignoring margin of victory, shouldn't there be some override for weak moves played when the lead is sufficient? AlphaGo played some weak moves when it perceived it was sufficiently ahead yesterday in the end game. A truly intelligent opponent will play strong mo…

I think the idea is that AlphaGo decided that the "strong" moves, while it may have increased its lead, would have been more risky than moves that just fortified its current lead.

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

#454

Post by sago »

kqr wrote: post #92
sago wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the AGA version was better. Unfortunately they aren't broadcasting for the next game on Friday. At least that's what they said.

There's a good reason for that: there is no game on Friday. Next game is Saturday, and they may or may not broadcast that. Andrew is ready, but he needs a pro or otherwise really skilled player to provide high-level commentary. Hyungwan who did it the last two games will not be available.

Friday US time, yes. ;)

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

#455

Post by mhagiwara »

I always wanted to learn to play Go and one of the reasons was because it was the only game where computers hadn't defeated human - well, it is no longer the case and I kind of lost motivation to learn it.

I wonder what would be interesting games (intellectual sports) where computers have yet to defeat humans that you would probably be interested in learning?

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

#458

Post by awhe »

cjbprime wrote: post #378
conanbatt wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that his point is that it would be interesting to see AlphaGo pushed to its limit and playing a point-maximizing game. Which would be pretty terrifying.

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

#459

Post by ethbro »

fma wrote: post #333
Ensorceled wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'm not a Go player but play other competitive sports. Humans have a herd mentality...as Op mentioned there's certain styles of playing...which has their own strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes people will not examine other styles that may have better strengths and just focus on the exist one. Then comes along someone who 'thinks outside the box' with a new style and revolutionize the playing field. Think Bruce Lee a…

> AlphaGO is the best at playing Go. Maybe humans can devise a better style and defeat AlphaGo, but I'm sure AlphaGo can adapt easily if another style exists.

Which is a curious point. The gripes about early brute force search algorithms (e.g. Deep Blue?) were that they felt unnature.

However, as the searches get more nuanced and finely grained, is there a point at which a fast machine begins doing fast stupid machine things quickly enough to feel smart?

Are there any chess / Go analogs of the Turing test? Or is a computer players always still recognizable at a high level?

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

#460

Post by EGreg »

sciyoshi wrote: post #442
EGreg wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But when the weaknesses it has require looking 20 ply into the game, can anyone exploit those weaknesses? And furthermore, if the computer itself is able to see 20 ply into the game, then it can spot its own weaknesses and you need to look even further, making the question of whether it's really a weakness. Weaknesses are only relative to capabilities of the opponent to exploit them. If a tank has a weak spot that ro…

I wonder if AlphaGo has some specialized knowledge to handle ladders, where stones can have an effect at a distance that might only come into play after 20 moves.

20 moves may sound like a huge number of variations but when you prune things early, it can be quite manageable. The alphabeta algorithm in chess does pruning quite a lot.
Post reply on HN