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

101–110 of 428 posts

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

#101

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

studentrob wrote: post #94
Eliezer wrote: post #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 probabili…

I wonder if he could identify those long-term-thinking moves by playing a version of AlphaGo on a smaller board, then gradually increasing the size of the board over successive games once he is able to consistently win or tie at a given board size. I also wonder if when Alpha Go plays itself, does it always win when it is black or white, does it always tie, or is it a mix? So much to learn from this.

I was thinking the opposite. AI has already been beating humans on smaller boards, so maybe the only chance we have is to start playing go on bigger and bigger boards.

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

#102

Post by studentrob »

taneq wrote: post #92
Eliezer wrote: post #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 probabili…

This is reminding me more and more of the central theme of the book Echopraxia, which was that when dealing with superhuman intelligences, you are by definition not smart enough to even know whether you're winning.

Hmm maybe but aren't humans capable of learning too?

One could make the same statement of two humans of different ranks playing each other. In some cases, the more highly ranked player might be the only one who knows who's winning.

This doesn't mean that the lesser ranked player can't improve over time. It just means that at that moment, that player is inexperienced or less skilled, which we already knew.

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

#103

Post by anonaoeu »

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…

If an AI has any motivation at all, say, to make paperclips as efficiently as possible, then any threat to its existence is a threat to its objective function - namely, to create paperclips. A hyper-intelligent entity who is instructed to optimize for paperclips created will therefore proactively remove threats to its existence (i.e. its paperclip-creating functionality) and might possibly turn the entire solar system into paperclips within a few years if its objective function isn't carefully determined.

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

#104

Post by alextgordon »

pushrax wrote: post #31

It's important to remember that this is an accomplishment of humanity, not a defeat. By constructing this AI, we are simply creating another tool for advancing our state of being. (or something like that)

What is our purpose if computers can do everything better than us?

It feels like computers have taken one aspect of humanness: logic. Computers could do arithmetic, do algebra, play chess, and now they can play go.

It hurts because logic is usually thought to be one of the highest of human characteristics. Yes computers might never be able to replicate emotion, but even dogs have that.

There's still some aspects we have left to call our own. Computers perform poorly at language-based tasks. They can't write books, write math papers, compose symphonies. I hope it stays that way.

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

#105

Post by [deleted] »

Eliezer wrote: post #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 probabili…

[deleted]

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

#106

Post by [deleted] »

theroof wrote: post #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?

[deleted]

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

#108

Post by raarts »

jonbaer wrote: post #35
seanwilson wrote: post #18

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.

Are we really sure we want to train our top AI in galactical warfare?

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

#110

Post by Radim »

studentrob wrote: post #102
taneq wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is reminding me more and more of the central theme of the book Echopraxia, which was that when dealing with superhuman intelligences, you are by definition not smart enough to even know whether you're winning.

Hmm maybe but aren't humans capable of learning too? One could make the same statement of two humans of different ranks playing each other. In some cases, the more highly ranked player might be the only one who knows who's winning. This doesn't mean that the lesser ranked player can't improve over time. It just means that at that moment, that player is inexperienced or less skilled, which we already knew.

Alas, time is not on meat's side in this one.
Post reply on HN