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

211–220 of 428 posts

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

#211

Post by danmaz74 »

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?

I wasn't talking about the implementation, but about the problem space.

Anyway Marazan already pointed that out, but any computer system is a state machine, with 2^N states where N is the number of bits the machine can flip anywhere in its system (RAM, registries, disk, etc.).

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

#212

Post by astrofinch »

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…

Superintelligent AIs, like all computer programs, will do exactly as they're programmed to do. The problem is that computers do what you say, not what you mean. (Hence bugs.) So if you were to try to program a computer to "make human lives the best and most comfortable they can be", or something like that, it would be very difficult to actually specify that correctly. (Especially since it's a way more complicated, nuanced, controversial objective than "win at Go".)

That's why e.g. the Future of Life Institute's open AI letter is so important: http://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/ We need to be thinking in advance about how to solve the "value loading" problem for future AIs, and how to architect them so they can be deployed to solve big problems without being undermined by subtle but catastrophic bugs.

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

#213

Post by agumonkey »

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…

The day computers find their own power sockets and setup electric farms ?

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

#214

Post by Aeolos »

hughperkins wrote: post #197
chubot wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think it's accurate to say that driving a car is harder in some sense than playing Go, based on the fact that the AI for Go came first. A lot of people have been working on self-driving cars for a long time now, and it's very monetizable, unlike Go.

To be fair, you're probably not going to drive around with 180GPUs in your trunk...

But does it play Crysis?

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

#215

Post by faitswulff »

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…

The difference between being outdone by another human and being outdone by a computer is that the computer's efforts are nearly infinitely reproducible, given the processing power.

So a more apt analogy would be if there was someone inside every cellphone who could write books, papers, or symphonies better than you. That day is coming.

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

#216

Post by omphalos »

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…

> the stark degree to which "AlphaGo output that move because the board will later be in a winning state" sometimes doesn't correlate with conventional Go goals like taking territory or being up on points

Minor quibbles: 1) taking territory or being up on points are the same thing, and 2) in go there are many other things to optimize for besides territory/points - influence, shape, efficiency, and sente being examples of this.

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

#217

Post by drited »

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…

How do we know that it's not just that the AI dominates the later stages where the number of permutations has reduced to the point where AI can calculate optimal moves? In other words, how do we know that the computer has an edge on the early stages and isn't just breaking even until the later stages with less permutations arrive, at which point it dominates because there are still too many for humans to assess?

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

#218

Post by detaro »

seanwilson wrote: post #71
jonbaer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hassabis discusses some StarCraft here ... http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/10/11192774/demis-hassabis-in... ... good interview.

I read that too. It's interesting StarCraft is suggested instead of any classic board games. It sounds like Go is the pinnacle of board games then. Would StarCraft be the last game AI has to beat?

I think for perfect information board games Go is the pinnacle, at least among the human-played. (the field of general game-playing AIs makes up all kinds of crazy games that might be "harder" in one way or the other)

If you look for an RTS game, StarCraft is an obvious candidate. It has a relatively active community of AI writers and AI competitions, it's a classic of competitive play, ...

Real-time games are hard to compare, because the interface really makes a difference. Does the AI get to talk directly to the game engine? Or does it have to use screen capture, understand the image and then use a robot arm to press keys, or something in between? If it gets to see precise positions and to input commands directly, even relatively "simple" programs can do crazy micro tricks and get massive advantages that way, even if their general macro-strategy is bad. If you do the other way you need image analysis and robotics, Google should have the tech for both ;)

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

#219

Post by hughperkins »

tome wrote: post #210
mathgenius wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

no :)

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

#220

Post by fma »

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…

Our purpose is to enjoy life... Strive to be the best Go play you can be and enjoy the process.

Don't worry about the machine. Even in Star Trek TNG, Data can outperform everyone in every task, but was never truly happy!

Post reply on HN