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

141–150 of 428 posts

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

#141

Post by azzafazza »

argonaut wrote: post #113
kurlberg wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A case of life imitating AI koans: Uncarved block In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6. "What are you doing?", asked Minsky. "I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-tac-toe", Sussman replied. "Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky. "I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play", Sussman said. Minsky then shut his eyes. "Why…

The actual quote: "Sussman told Minsky that he was using a certain randomizing technique in his program because he didn't want the machine to have any preconceived notions" makes no indication it was a neural net ;)

;)

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

#142

Post by studentrob »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #101
studentrob wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Huh, interesting. I'm not well-versed in Go at all.

It would be interesting if AlphaGo's maneuvers remain opaque to humans for an extended period of time. Can anyone at this point say with confidence that its strategies will indefinitely remain unknown?

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

#143

Post by kleiba »

atemerev wrote: post #129
alextgordon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

No it won't. Natural languages are the next focal point of AI research. Expect big changes in the next few years.

You mean, in addition to the big changes of the last few decades?

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

#145

Post by nathan_f77 »

alextgordon wrote: post #104
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 h…

Computers will be able to compose symphonies very soon. If DeepMind started working on this problem, I am sure that they would succeed. At least, we would have some innovative mashups of Beethoven, Mozart and Tchaikovsky. But training a powerful AI on a massive dataset of all popular and classical music should produce some extraordinary results. Especially if the dataset was given as MIDI with separate instrument tracks, so that an AI could learn how to write parts for different instruments, and how a song should be balanced. I actually think we are at the point where we have more than enough data to distill the essence of "good music", and generate an endless supply of great songs.

People have been doing his for decades, but as far as I'm aware, no-one has tried it with thousands of distributed servers and millions of songs.

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

#146

Post by kotach »

badminton1 wrote: post #49
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)

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

AlphaGo is certainly controllable.

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

#147

Post by ap22213 »

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)

I hate to be cynical, but I'm sure many of my ancestors were also told to believe similar things. I know for certain that my grandparents and great grandparents believed that technology would create such progress that people of my generation would not have to work, and all would have leisure time.

AI is more likely to evolve into a tool to be used by the few to control the many.

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

#148

Post by [deleted] »

samizdatum wrote: post #136
alextgordon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

You're implying that if something can be outdone it doesn't have a purpose, which seems to rule out purposes for pretty much everything. I'm sure there's always someone that can write books or maths papers or symphonies better than you. I don't think this robs you of purpose, unless your purpose is to be the absolute best at something. Anyway, I find it curious that you would say logic is a quintessentially human tra…

[deleted]

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

#149

Post by dwaltrip »

samizdatum wrote: post #136
alextgordon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

You're implying that if something can be outdone it doesn't have a purpose, which seems to rule out purposes for pretty much everything. I'm sure there's always someone that can write books or maths papers or symphonies better than you. I don't think this robs you of purpose, unless your purpose is to be the absolute best at something. Anyway, I find it curious that you would say logic is a quintessentially human tra…

With Godel's incompleteness theorem in 1931, it was proven there is no perfect logic. He proved you can't formalize something even as simple as arithmetic -- any such attempt will always contain an infinite number of inconsistencies & paradoxes.

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

#150

Post by thom »

spicyj wrote: post #75
PeCaN wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There really isn't, from the point of view of AlphaGo. But for someone playing Go (or any game), it's a hint that perhaps one should focus on things that can go wrong more than furthering your own aggressive plan.

It's certainly a feature of the best Magic: the Gathering pros, for example - their play is marked by the cards they play around, even when seemingly far ahead.

Post reply on HN