Live data from Hacker News

AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

youtube.com

71–80 of 428 posts

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

#71
post #35

Super interesting to watch this unfold. So what game should AI tackle next? I've heard imperfect information games are harder for AI...would the AlphaGo approach not work well for these?

Hassabis discusses some StarCraft here ... http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/10/11192774/demis-hassabis-in... ... good interview.

I read that too. It's interesting StarCraft is suggested instead of any classic board games. It sounds like Go is the pinnacle of board games then.

Would StarCraft be the last game AI has to beat?

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

#72
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…

You might want to be careful or emergence might bite you in the ass. Don't play games with things that could be smarter than you are, one mistake and you lose.

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

#73
Is anyone also asking themselves when they'll be able to play against this level of AI on their mobile phone? Or formulated differently: when will an "AlphaGo" (or equivalent) app appear in the play/app store?

In 2 years? In 1 year? In 3 months?

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

#74
post #33

What happens if you give the human player a handicap? I wonder if the games are really as close as the commentators say, or if it's just a quirk of the MCST algorithm.

The great go champion Otake Hideo famously said that if he were to play go against God Himself, he would take only a three stone handicap, and if his life depended on it, he would take four. Alphago's not perfect, but it would still be very interesting to watch such a handicapped game.

Can it even play a handicapped game? I'm assuming the handicap means the other play can begin with several stones on the board. AlphaGo would have no training on such a configuration and would likely not know how to approach it.

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

#75
post #43

Some professionals labeled some AlphaGo moves as being unoptimal or slow. In reality, Alpha Go doesn't try to maximize its score, only its probability of winning.

From watching it I'm almost inclined to say it maximizes its chances of not losing over necessarily winning.

Sorry, but what's the difference?

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

#76
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In game 2 there was a point where Michael Redmond seemed to do a triple take and couldn't believe the move AlphaGo played.

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…

They didn't provide the exact depth of the search tree in the paper, but IIRC it was mentioned somewhere that it evaluates ~20 moves deep before terminating with the value net.

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

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One perfect-information game that's at least as hard: constructive mathematics. (Proof assistants even give it a sort of videogame-style UI.) I've been wondering about some kind of neural net for ranking the 'moves' coupled with the usual proof search.

I don't know much about Go but I'm guessing general proof automation would be many, many orders of magnitudes harder. The branching factor is huge (you can apply any theorem you want to the current goal and go down a bad path) and knowing if you're on the right track to finish a proof isn't obvious.

Yeah, I don't imagine this is easy. The applications for even incremental advances here should be obvious.

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

#78

I really want to see how a team of humans would do against alpha-go with a 3 or 4 hour time limit.

A team of go players usually is not much stronger than the best player of the team. I won't be afraid of playing against a team of players a couple of stones weaker than me. None of them can come up with moves beyond their level so their strategy won't improve. They could get more accurate at reading and that's worth something.

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

#79
My (long) commentary here:

https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154018209759228

Sample:

At this point it seems likely that Sedol is actually far outclassed by a superhuman player. The suspicion is that since AlphaGo plays purely for probability of long-term victory rather than playing for points, the fight against Sedol generates boards that can falsely appear to a human to be balanced even as Sedol's probability of victory diminishes. The 8p and 9p pros who analyzed games 1 and 2 and thought the flow of a seemingly Sedol-favoring game 'eventually' shifted to AlphaGo later, may simply have failed to read the board's true state. The reality may be a slow, steady diminishment of Sedol's win probability as the game goes on and Sedol makes subtly imperfect moves that humans think result in even-looking boards...

The case of AlphaGo is a helpful concrete illustration of these concepts [from AI alignment theory]...

Edge instantiation. Extremely optimized strategies often look to us like 'weird' edges of the possibility space, and may throw away what we think of as 'typical' features of a solution. In many different kinds of optimization problem, the maximizing solution will lie at a vertex of the possibility space (a corner, an edge-case). In the case of AlphaGo, an extremely optimized strategy seems to have thrown away the 'typical' production of a visible point lead that characterizes human play...

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

#80
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…

You don't design nuclear plant reactors to melt down, but they do. The difference is that an AI only has to escape once to become incredibly harmful.
Post reply on HN