AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

Post by threeseed » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 11:26 AM UTC

Radim wrote: post #110

studentrob wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 by tunichtgut » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 11:27 AM UTC

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…

Post by rhaps0dy » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 11:29 AM UTC

Radim wrote: post #82

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.

Challenging Ke Jie is way too small a goal for DeepMind at this point. I wonder if even the idea from the AGA stream today, to get all the best pros in the world together and challenge AlphaGo as a team, is enough. Perhaps releasing the core AlphaGo as open source (to the extent it's not dependent on internal Google machinery), or at least publishing its trained model, may be the next step. Let people "challenge them…

Post by hythloday » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 11:40 AM UTC

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…

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 11:45 AM UTC

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.