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

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

#491

Post by conanbatt » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 7:32 PM UTC

w0bb13 wrote: post #300

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.

Alphago isn't programmed to think of that as a mistake (i.e. the team wouldn't be disappointed if she did it). It really only cares about W/L.

If you redefine a mistake as not a mistake, you only uncover that the path to perfection is denial.

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

#492

Post by CyberDildonics » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 7:33 PM UTC

y4mi wrote: post #479

CyberDildonics wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wasn't saying it will literally happen exactly as a Simpsons episode predicted, just that it is interestingly relevant for joke from 20 years ago.

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

#493

Post by Falcon9 » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

Jobbers wrote: post #355

hitekker wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is now.

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

#494

Post by Cookingboy » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 7:36 PM UTC

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…

Lee isn't even the best human player at the moment, he has a 2-8 loss record against Ke Jie, who's actually ranked number 1 at the moment.

Ke Jie is an arrogant 18 year old and he's been saying on social network in the past couple days how he will defeat AlphaGo.

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

#495

Post by _vk_ » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 7:45 PM UTC

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.

>I wonder if AlphaGo has some specialized knowledge to handle ladders

Yes. A representation of ladders is among the input features of its neural networks.

https://gogameguru.com/i/2016/03/deepmind-mastering-go.pdf

Stone colour 3 Player stone / opponent stone / empty

Ones 1 A constant plane filled with 1

Turns since 8 How many turns since a move was played

Liberties 8 Number of liberties (empty adjacent points)

Capture size 8 How many opponent stones would be captured

Self-atari size 8 How many of own stones would be captured

Liberties after move 8 Number of liberties after this move is played

Ladder capture 1 Whether a move at this point is a successful ladder capture

Ladder escape 1 Whether a move at this point is a successful ladder escape

Sensibleness 1 Whether a move is legal and does not fill its own eyes

Zeros 1 A constant plane filled with 0

Player color 1 Whether current player is black

(The number is how many 19x19 planes the feature consists of.)

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

#496

Post by zardeh » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 7:49 PM UTC

ig1 wrote: post #254

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 is essentially built on the work that IBM did on TD-Gammon (a reinforcement learning backgammon player) in the 90s. Pretty much the same thing happened with TD-Gammon with it playing unconventional moves, in the longer term humans ended up adopting some of TD-Gammon's tactics once they understood how they played out, it wouldn't be surprising to see the same happen with Go.

Reading the paper, it doesn't at all sound like AlphaGo uses anything that TD-Gammon used.

It uses MCTS, which is unlike minimax. It doesn't use temporal difference learning, although they say that the policy somewhat resembles TD.

That doesn't sound like 'essentially built on', its sounds maybe like 'slightly influenced by'

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

#497

Post by ghaff » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 7:50 PM UTC

maaku wrote: post #472

ghaff wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, I'm well-aware of that and obviously this is big news on sites like this one. I was mostly remarking that this is pretty low on general news radar screens.

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

#498

Post by AndyNemmity » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 7:52 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 don't think that's fair at all to Chris. As someone who has never watched GO before, he kept the topic often to very beginner level questions, and often kept Michael on topic a little bit. I would say Chris added a lot of value to my experience, although this is the first time watching either of them.

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

#499

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 7:53 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…

[deleted]

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

#500

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 7:53 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…

[deleted]