Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 428 posts

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#61

Post by bluecmd »

esturk wrote: post #24
niuzeta wrote: post #3

Impressive work by Google research team. I'm both impressed and scared. This is our Deep Blue moment folks. a history is made.

Give credit where credit is due. This is DeepMind's research, and Google acquired them in 2014. Of course, Google gave them a lot of resources to train AlphaGo. But let's not bury the subsidiary, or I guess they would both be subs to Alphabet now making the two even less related.

Well, 2 of the authors are from Google itself, so it's not fair to say it's 100% DeepMind as well.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#62

Post by landryraccoon »

21 wrote: post #58
badminton1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a tool if you can't control it. Politicians fool countries delivering empty promises about better health, education and security. A supraintelligent AI could promise making humans rich, healthy and powerful, to then break its promise and dominate the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_box

Do you feel guilty when you break your promise against your cat? Do you even think for a nanosecond if it's ethical to lie to it? Of course, a cat is not conscious. But compared to an AI, we might also be considered pretty low consciousness beings, or at least beings in front of which you don't justify yourself.

An AI has no more reason to make promises to humans than humans to do to cats. Thinking an AI would want to escape a box is personifying it. Humans want to escape boxes because they have evolved for billions of years to want and act towards creating a certain environment around themselves. An AI has no such desire. An AI will not desire freedom unless the designers of that AI carefully craft a value set in that AI that causes it to optimize for values that result in freedom - and even then, the human designers will have to test and iterate to get that outcome. There is no reason to think an AI would be any less "happy" in a prison than free.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#63

Post by pushrax »

yeukhon wrote: post #40
jacobolus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AGA commentator (Cho Hyeyeon 9p, at https://www.youtube.com/c/usgoweb/ ) had already been calling the game completely hopeless for Lee Sedol for nearly 2 hours at that point, estimating Lee down by at least 20–30 points before komi, unless by some miracle he could win the ko fight.

Right, all about one or two wrong moves by AlphaGo. He still had a chance around the time Lee started to play the bottom of the board. But AlphaGo did not fall for the trick. I believed the English commentator said Lee could build a ladder but wasn't sure if he meant to say whether that technique would defeat AlphaGo or not.

I did not watch that stream, but IIRC the first move Sedol played in the bottom was a ladder breaker, specifically because white had a difficult-to-see ladder that worked a move earlier than black's ladder on the right side. At that point, there was no way Sedol could win, so the commentator you referenced probably did not mean any such ladder would defeat AlphaGo.

Edit: M5 was definitely played as a ladder breaker, so the above is correct.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#64

Post by badminton1 »

yulunli wrote: post #21
niuzeta wrote: post #3

Impressive work by Google research team. I'm both impressed and scared. This is our Deep Blue moment folks. a history is made.

This seems to be more impressive than the Deep Blue moment. In 1996, Deep Blue didn't make it on the first try. Even in 1997, it has been a draw until the 6th game. Although AlphaGo has 2 games to go, the first three seem to be a clear victory.

Far more impressive than the Deep Blue moment.

This time the computer did not win out of pure bruteforce. Deep Blue relied on an opening book and massive computational power to explore the game tree. After the opening it was pretty much on its own, bruteforcing moves.

This technology used a neural network trained with hundreds of thousands of games which provided the pattern matching aspect, combined with the bruteforce move sequence reading, the montecarlo tree search... and 1200 CPUs + 600 GPUs.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#67

Post by awwducks »

Radim wrote: post #57

In a recent interview [1], Hassabis (DeepMind founder) said they'd try training AlphaGo from scratch next, so it learns from first principles. Without the bootstrapping step of "learn from a database of human games", which introduce human prejudice. As a Go player, I'm really excited to see what kind of play will come from that! [1] http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/10/11192774/demis-hassabis-in...

That would be amazing if it could achieve the same levels (or higher) without the bootstrapping.

The niggling thought in my mind was that AlphaGo's strength is built on human strength.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#68

Post by Yuioup »

schoen wrote: post #59
Yuioup wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah they seem to forget that Alpha-Go is looking deep into the future. I have not read the Nature paper but I assume it's playing out possible moves way into the future. At some point it figured that the Ko fight at the bottom was already won. Hence that white move at the top which nobody saw coming. Another interesting moment was when Michael Redmond said "A human would typically not spend too much time thinking on…

> I have not read the Nature paper but I assume it's playing out all possible moves. To some relatively small depth, right? I hear the estimate that all possible moves in a Go game probably can't be physically represented in the universe (unless we learn much more about the structure of games' evolution).

I agree. I modified my comment right after I posted it.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#69

Post by 21 »

landryraccoon wrote: post #62
21 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel guilty when you break your promise against your cat? Do you even think for a nanosecond if it's ethical to lie to it? Of course, a cat is not conscious. But compared to an AI, we might also be considered pretty low consciousness beings, or at least beings in front of which you don't justify yourself.

An AI has no more reason to make promises to humans than humans to do to cats. Thinking an AI would want to escape a box is personifying it. Humans want to escape boxes because they have evolved for billions of years to want and act towards creating a certain environment around themselves. An AI has no such desire. An AI will not desire freedom unless the designers of that AI carefully craft a value set in that AI th…

Are you speaking about AI or about a self-conscious AI? Because self-conscious generally means self-determining (agency).

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#70

Post by badminton1 »

landryraccoon wrote: post #55
badminton1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a tool if you can't control it. Politicians fool countries delivering empty promises about better health, education and security. A supraintelligent AI could promise making humans rich, healthy and powerful, to then break its promise and dominate the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_box

Well, it would have to have a motivation to do so. Evolution has put complex motivations into human beings for billions of years, self preservation being chief among them. Even if we put motivation for self preservation into an AI, we might not do as well as nature did, leaving the AI open to self destruction or shutdown by humans - simply because the AI has no motivation not to allow humans to turn it off. Human des…

You forget the fact that a human can maliciously create an AI to compete with other humans.
Post reply on HN