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

201–210 of 428 posts

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

#201

Post by mike_hearn »

stephenboyd wrote: post #81
landryraccoon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Basically, why would an AI want to dominate the world? Humans are going to program their AI's to try to make as much money as possible. Many corporations are already mindless and reckless amoral machines that relentlessly try to optimize profits despite any externalities. Try to imagine Exxon, Wal-Mart, and Amazon run by an intelligence beyond human understanding or accountability.

That's sort of like saying civilisation can't work because humans will want to make as much money as possible. No, in practice humans tend to want to make as much money as possible within lots of other very complex constraints, like law, morality, how much time they have available, how enjoyable the available processes of making money are, whether they feel they already have sufficient money for their own needs, etc.

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

#203

Post by atemerev »

kleiba wrote: post #143
atemerev wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I mean, like actually passing the Turing test.

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

#204

Post by fixermark »

anonaoeu wrote: post #103
landryraccoon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 syste…

"Satisfying human values through friendship and ponies."

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

#205

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

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…

>> 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?"

Look, there's no doubt that computers can outperform humans in specific tasks. There's no doubt that AlphaGo is intelligent when it comes to Go, but on the other hand it would be completely incapable of tackling a different congitive task- say, language, or vision, or discriminating between say two species of animal [Edit, since there seems to be confusion on this: you'd need different training data and another training session to perform well at a different task].

That's a limitation of our current systems. They generalise badly, or they don't model their domain very well. You have to train them again for each different task that you want them to undertake and their high performance in one task does not necessarily translate in high performance in another task.

Humans on the other hand are good at generalising, which does seem to be necessary for general intelligence. If we learn to play a board game, we can take the lessons from it and apply them in, I don't know, business. If we learn maths, we can then use the knowledge [Edit: of what constitutes a well-formed theory] to tackle physics and chemistry. And so on.

So, let's say that "true AI" is something that can show an ability to generalise from one domain to another, like humans do, and can be trained in multiple cognitive tasks at the same time. If we can do that, then computers will already be super-human, because they can already outperform us in terms of speed and precision.

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

#206

Post by tunichtgut »

xuesj wrote: post #120

This is a milestone of AI in history. The ability of AlphaGo is amazing and far beyond to human.

I dont know if AlphaGo is "beyond" all human players.

Given AlphaGo has learned all played games from a database, its more like AlphaGo is the essence or the sum of all experience gained from those games played. AlphaGo is better than every player (perhaps), but it has not pushed the game further by itself.

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

#207

Post by hythloday »

jacquesm wrote: post #190
hythloday wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that true human intelligence includes being able to help machines think better. So it seems reasonable to state that true machine intelligence includes being able to help humans think better. Other things that humans can do that machines can't yet: * change other human's minds * contribute to the state of the art of human knowledge * determine the difference between a human and a machine.

> change other human's minds Computer says no > contribute to the state of the art of human knowledge Genetic algorithms have designed circuitry that we failed to even understand at first but that did work. > determine the difference between a human and a machine. For now.

I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're making with "computer says no".

> Genetic algorithms have designed circuitry that we failed to even understand at first but that did work.

This is an excellent example of what I think of as not machine intelligence. If humans can't understand it then it's something entirely different that we need a different word for - an "artefact", perhaps. Meaningfully contributing to the state of the art of human knowledge requires being built upon. If these genetic algorithms can explain how they can be incorporated into the design process by humans, that's intelligence. If they are similar to being able to evolve a mantis shrimp by fiddling with DNA, that is marvellous but not what I would regard as intelligence.

We apply the same standard to human intelligence: someone who can multiply numbers very fast but not explain how they can do it is a savant; someone who can discover and teach other people a faster way of multiplication is intelligent.

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

#208

Post by tunichtgut »

pixl97 wrote: post #85
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?

Well, we can't answer that question at this point. We do know that the system is more powerful than a human, so the question becomes "How much hardware can we take away and still be better than the best". That sets the hardware floor we have to reach. The current answer is, still a long way off. With massive forecasts in GPU power over the next few years it may be reasonable for people to have desktops in their home…

I think this is a good guess. 280 GPUs in a single Desktop. It will take at least 10 years.

Perhaps longer given the restrictions (and huge problems) in further down scaling of the known silicon technology. GPUs are now at 28nm and the newest Intel CPUs on 14nm.

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

#209

Post by qznc »

tzs wrote: post #161
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.

Hopefully Google does not do what IBM did and stop playing after they win. IBM lost in 1996, 2-4, and then won in 1997, 3.5-2.5. If they had played a third match with Kasparov, especially a longer match, it is not at all clear that they would have won. Kasparov asked for a third match of 10 games, to be played over 20 days, but IBM would not give it to him.

What is the point? What a few years and you can get an equivalent AI on your home computer. Play as many games as you want.

Of course, you can change rules as much as you want and generate new marketing events. Personally, I would like a match where the AI is only allowed the energy a human uses. I guess, AlphaGo would lose with only 2000 kcal (2.3 kWh). Not sure about chess.

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

#210

Post by tome »

mathgenius wrote: post #164
hasenj wrote: post #13

Seems to be playing at super-human levels. I'm no where near a strong player but it seems like AlphaGo is far ahead of Lee Sedol.

It seems like in all three games, AlphaGo plays a thick move that looks a bit baffling to the commentators, but then miraculously those moves become hugely profitable somewhat later on in the game.

Is it possible that all of AlphaGo's strength is in these baffling moves? If humans played enough games against AlphaGo and discovered how to counter the baffling moves, is it plausible that AlphaGo's strength would be lost?
Post reply on HN