AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5 • Hacker News Board

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

#471

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

colanderman wrote: post #386

reacweb wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hu…

> 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.

That's actually an excellent way to win chess games. Keep your eye on the mate while the other person is focusing on position and material.

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

#472

Post by maaku » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #293

daveguy wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 guess it's because Go isn't that well known in the West but I find it a bit surprising (though not really) that this isn't getting more press. When Kasparov lost it was news but not really surprising. If it wasn't Kasparov that a computer beat, it would have been the next champion. The writing was on the wall for a long time. It was just a question of when exactly. As for Go, I guess I would never had made a long b…

Go may not be well known in the west, but it was extremely well known in AI circles. Even before DeepBlue, Go was considered the holy grail of competitive game AI.

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

#473

Post by lifeformed » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

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…

If people didn't know AlphaGo was a machine, and simply played anonymously online against masters, I wonder how they would interpret AlphaGo's personality?

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

#474

Post by blacksmith_tb » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

wyager wrote: post #369

hasenj wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually this AI kind of confirms these myths, since its basis are not in mathematics but in neural networks. While it could be argued to be just math, so is the brain, but that's besides the point. The point is, even the programmers have no idea what the AI is thinking. The way it picks moves is very similar to how top professionals do. Intuition is reduced to memories stored vaguely as neural connections.

You can still beat Go using "simpler" math. If you have enough compute power, you can always just minimax the whole game tree. Neural networks aren't un-mathematical; they're just a slightly more complicated technique for discovering an approximation to a function that does what you want (even if you're not sure what that function looks like internally).

So AlphaGo's reign will last only until QuantumGo arrives on the scene? It would be sort of ironic to have spent decades developing practical AIs with classical computing to have them swept aside only when they started to really deliver results...

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

#475

Post by zardo » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #459

fma wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 machin…

Computer players will be recognizable as long as they are designed to win, and not to play the way a human plays.

A Turing test for game players is an interesting idea, it would be useful for designing game players that are good sparring partners rather than brutes that can whipe the floor with you.

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

#476

Post by saulrh » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 6:58 PM UTC

espadrine wrote: post #170

pushrax wrote: post #3

If AlphaGo wins all 5 matches, what do you think DeepMind will do with it? My intuition is that they won't continue development, and instead focus on other applications. Great game btw, a pleasure to watch.

> Demis Hassabis, Google DeepMind's CEO, has expressed the willingness to pick Ke as AlphaGo's next target. http://www.shanghaidaily.com/national/AlphaGo-cant-beat-me-s... Ke Jie believes he is slightly better than AlphaGo given the play he has seen, although he thinks AlphaGo will outpower him in a few months. The belief that every good player that has so far played against AlphaGo would win highlights a common misu…

> There seems to be in fact a very small difference between the aptitudes of the average players and those of the top players

This is an interesting observation across many domains that involve "intelligence". It's actually pretty easy to see why, if you reconsider the scales for "good" vs "bad": The "bad" end of the scale is not at "the village idiot". The "bad" end of the scale is at "a rock". So, yes, once you get from "rock" to "village idiot", "superhuman" is a comparatively tiny step away.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/ql/my_childhood_role_model/

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

#477

Post by dragontamer » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 6:58 PM UTC

lpage wrote: post #406

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> he will later point out to as achieving very good results some 20 moves later This. It's a fairly common feature of any AI that uses some form of tree search/minimax, and the effect is very pronounced in chess. Even the best human players can only think 6-8 plies into the feature versus ~18 for a computer. What we can (could?) do is apply smarter evaluation functions to the board states resulting from candidate pla…

On the contrary.

I think that Chess machines play perfectly for the next 8 moves, but don't necessarily sense the importance of a Knight Outpost (which may have relevance 20 moves ahead. A proper Knight Outpost will remain a fork threat for the rest of the game).

It is far easier for a Human to beat a Chess Machine at positional play (ex: a backwards pawn shape will probably be a problem at endgame, 30+ moves from now) than to beat a Chess Machine at tactical play (3 moves from now, I can force a fork between two minor pieces)

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

#478

Post by semi-extrinsic » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 6:59 PM UTC

atom-morgan wrote: post #398

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…

As a competitive speedcuber (Rubik's Cubes) this makes sense. If I watch a fellow cuber solve a cube, I understand their process even if it's a different method than the one I'd use. But a robot solving it? To my brain it looks like random turns until...oh shit it's finished.

Have you ever managed to learn the human Thistlethwaite algo? It basically lets you solve the cube like a robot would. I'm pretty rusty at cubing nw, but I always wanted to learn it.

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

#479

Post by y4mi » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 7:06 PM UTC

CyberDildonics wrote: post #439

astrofinch wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Skynet and Terminator are science fiction, but the slippery, unpredictable reality of how computers actually behave is right in front of your eyes as a programmer every day. Sometimes I wonder if science fiction writers do more harm than good: once they make a movie about some possible future, people feel free to dismiss it as "just science fiction", even if they have easily available empirical evidence that s…

Not unlike the Simpsons episode where the military school graduation speech tells them the wars of the future will be fought with robots and that their jobs will be to maintain those robots.

thats .. unlikely. this could only happen if two wealthy and highly developed nations nations want to make a spectacle out of a war.

if you have fully autonomous robots which can fight your war, you'd be able to launch a massive offensive within hours. properly mobilizing defenses and responding to that invasion would take too long, as any command centers would've already been wiped out by the first attack.

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

#480

Post by SolarNet » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 7:09 PM UTC

sgw928 wrote: post #93

bronz wrote: post #55

Who was the GO professional commentator? He was consistently predicting the moves of both Sedol and alphago. I was extremely impressed.

As the only 9p player in the western world, Michael Redmond is of course very impressive. Chris Garlock, on the other hand, doesn't add that much value to the broadcast. Maybe somebody will start a "Left Commentator" meme, just like Left Shark.

I mean it's classic sports broadcasting. You have the expert and the guys who gives the expert someone to back and forth with. E-sports has been using that formula for ever.