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

171–180 of 428 posts

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

#171

Post by timothya »

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.

According to the pre-match interview[0], the AlphaGo project is about two years old, and started out as a collaboration between two members of DeepMind and a member of the Google Brain team (Google's deep learning team which pre-dates the DeepMind acquisition by several years, according to Wikipedia). So really, AlphaGo is a combined effort that was always a part of Google, and I think it's pretty clear that resources provided by Google (money, equipment, and tooling) in addition to the techniques developed by both Google and DeepMind made this project a reality. I think they both deserve a lot of credit, certainly, but I wouldn't say that the credit is all that misplaced here.

[0]: https://youtu.be/qUAmTYHEyM8?t=1201

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

#172

Post by gandalfu »

Its a matter of language.

Our model of representation of Go fails at expressing the game/strategies of AlphaGo is showing, we are communicating in the board in different languages, no wonder everyone looking the at games is stomped by the machine "moves".

Our brains lack the capacity of implementing such algorithms (understanding such languages), but we can still create them. We might see in the future engine A played against engine B and enjoy the matches.

No one is surprised by a machine doing a better job with integer programming/operational research/numerical solutions etc.

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

#173

Post by Marazan »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #121
danmaz74 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consider GO: it is a game of sophisticated intuition It's still a game that can be described in terms of clear state-machine rules. The real challenge for AI is making sense and acting in the real world, which can't be described in such way. I consider advances in self-driving cars much more interesting in that sense - even if, even there, there are at least some rule-based constraints that can be applied to simpli…

But AlphaGo isn't an enormous state machine ... is it?

Well, it clearly is by being a computer program.

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

#174

Post by nsajko »

badminton1 wrote: post #84
flyingbutter wrote: post #50

The Chinese 9 Dan player Ke Jie basically said the game is lost after around 40 mins or so. He still thinks that he has a 60% chance of winning against AlphaGo (down from 100% on day one). But I doubt Google will bother to go to China and challenge him.

AlphaGo has also improved very quickly. Without doubt, the AlphaGo seen playing against Fan Hui would have lost against Lee Sedol. But in a couple of months its playing level raised significantly. Lee Sedol said he could beat AlphaGo, based on the Fan Hui games. Ke Jie said he could beat AlphaGo, based on the Lee Sedol games. Ke Jie belongs to a similar category than Lee Sedol, and we could see how Lee Sedol was comp…

That is obvious, and Ke Jie also said so.

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

#175

Post by tunichtgut »

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.

Obviously the chances for humans to win, increase with the board size.

Given the computational power (=number of cpu/gpu) is fixed and the time for each move to be done is fixed.

Perhaps a future "dr. evil / skynet" A.I. will first try to conquer the microchip production plants to increase its computational power and memory. goodbye taiwan, goodbye south korea, goodbye usa...

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

#176

Post by GolDDranks »

jules wrote: post #135
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.

When I play chess against a computer I can see very easily that I'm not winning.

But that is most likely be because of the structure of Chess. The evaluation of single board position is more "linear" and certainly easier than in Go.

If the utility function is about winning, going though easily-evalutable board positions might be the straightforward route.

If the utility function is to win while minimizing your estimate of of you losing, you might see different results.

Plus if you know that you are playing against a stronger opponent, your prior might bias your perception of the board situation.

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

#177

Post by eddyb »

quanticle wrote: post #166
studentrob wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll grant that for this very constrained problem ;-) I respect your work a lot. I've studied and used ML myself, including gensim, in industry. I've given nowhere near your level of contribution to society / the field. My opinion is true AI is quite a ways off. I haven't read anything from a ML researcher that says it isn't. Perhaps you weren't saying true AI is nearer.

I find it funny that whenever there's a case of computers being able to do something that they couldn't before, whether it's drive or beat humans at Go, the goalpost on what is "true AI" shifts to be something that computers can't do yet. So let me ask you this. What would you consider to be "true AI"? At what point are you willing to say, "Okay, that's it, computers are just plain smarter than we are?" Because, fran…

Accelerando[0] starts with this quote, which I really like:

"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."

– Edsger W. Dijkstra

[0] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelera... (readable online at http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelera...)

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

#178

Post by alexlikeits1999 »

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…

Regarding the expectation that it would have gone 5-0 or 4-1 to either one, you'd have to have equally predicted a similarly one-sided result in the Deep Blue v Kasparov match. Rate of improvement might end up being completely domain-dependent, and hard to predict a-priori how it will turn out.

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

#179

Post by pmontra »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #133
pmontra wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Lee lost a title 3-2 to Ke Je recently but he lost very convincingly against AlphaGo. Ke Je is not that stronger than Lee. He's going to lose too but he's 18 so I understand that he's feeling he can do anything. My feeling is that AlphaGo could be a couple of stones stronger than the best pros. Considering that dans are capped at 9 but there are 9 dans that always win against some other 9 dans, the best pros…

Do you know what the current limit is on a handicap that a professional player can overcome? Is there a known theoretical limit? That's a possible 'endgame' for go ai.

There must be some limit because the number of the possible moves is finite. How many handicap stones the current professionals are from that limit... who knows. Apparently AlphaGo could set a better lower limit but it should play with many more pros, and start giving handicap if needed.

I wonder if Google will make it available to pros outside these official matches. It's not that Deep Blue played so much after winning with Kasparov in 1997, right? Kasparov asked a rematch and IBM refused. Deep Blue never played again.

Our computers are stronger than it now, mainly thanks to advances in the algorithms. Deep Blue used to crunch many more positions per second than the current chess engines do on standard PC. Still they're stronger. AlphaGo is running on 1920 CPUs and 280 GPUs, so either research trims down its algorithms or we wait for CPUs with 1024 cores. But at the current size they won't fit below the keyboard of a laptop :-)

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

#180

Post by sangnoir »

FLUX-YOU wrote: post #169
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

> A supraintelligent AI could promise making humans rich, healthy and powerful, to then break its promise and dominate the world. Or it could devote its entire power to making human lives the best and most comfortable they can be because humanity is some super-precious resource in the universe and it feels it's unimportant because it's just a bunch of silicon and electrons. Supraintelligent AI being evil is FUD imho…

> Supraintelligent AI being evil is FUD imho because we can't reason about supraintelligent AI.

There is a difference between being evil and incomprehensible intelligence. You are not being evil when you accidentally step on an ant or dig up an ant-hill to build your shed. The ants won't be able to understand what you're doing, or why.

Post reply on HN