511–520 of 576 posts
These matches are not really fair: the AI team can "prepare" and examine the human's previous games, find weaknesses, aso, while the human doesn't really have anything to guide his/her preparations.
So if the first comment in this thread (about how it's a completely non-human approach) is true, it's really interesting that humans can enable computers to come up with non-human ways of solving complex problems.
Seems like a big part of this story, if I'm not being completely dumb here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think AlphaGo is playing very natural go! The 5th move shoulder hit that is the subject of so much commentary would fit into the theory of go that players like Takemiya espouse. It has chosen to emphasize influence and speed and has not been afraid to give solid territory early in the games so far. It's very exciting play but not inhuman play, and if professionals are allowed to train with AlphaGo it will surely us…
It didn't look like a Takemiya-style move to me. Takemiya tends to play for a huge moyo in the center. AlphaGo had no such moyo. It wasn't only a strange move; it was also a strange time to play it, and it definitely went against conventional wisdom.
Some examples of 5th line early shoulder hits in recent professional play - these situations are not the same as the one seen in today's game, but something like a 5th line shoulder hit is always going to be highly contextual and creative.
http://ps.waltheri.net/database/game/26929/ (move 23) http://ps.waltheri.net/database/game/69545/ (move 22) http://ps.waltheri.net/database/game/71408/ (move 22) http://ps.waltheri.net/database/game/4663/ (move 9)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the budget should be energy rather than time?
Just as arbitrary. Unless you're a self-sustaining vegan, you're costing a lot of energy even to just get you the few thousands of kcal your metabolism consumes. Unless you're not counting support systems, in case it becomes very complicated to calculate and decide exactly which energy expenses are for support systems and which are directly integral for function.
Lee Sedol is vastly more efficient than the entire AlphaGo cluster. However, while AlphaGo gains a predictable amount of power as its computing power is increased, it's not clear that one could do the same with humans. Our Go players optimize individual play, not multi-brain distributed play. What would the match look like if we trained up a bunch of humans to play Go as a team, and pitted AlphaGo against a team of humans that consume the same number of joules over the course of the match as it does?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 no…
Do some reading on Stockfish for example if you doubt the veracity of my statement.
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 see. What one means by "computer" is always a moving target. Deep Blue was a specially prepared supercomputer from 20 years ago. Apparently, today's top chess software running on a half-decent off-the-shelf machine could crush Deep Blue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 no…
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?
Of course, those fools underestimated it. They should have known better...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 no…
If this is true, why do computers regularly and consistently defeat even the best humans in full games of chess that last dozens of moves?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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