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

251–260 of 428 posts

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

#251

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

haliax wrote: post #236
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pocket calculator is faster than a human and has better memory. I don't know that this means the same thing as "superhuman in arithmetic". I can concede that it means superhuman in speed and memory, but, arithmetic? I don't think so. What it really does is move bits around registers. We are the ones interpreting those as numbers and the results of arithmetic operations. AlphaGo is rather different in that it actua…

Your calculator does have a representation of arithmetic too. It's those bits is moves around in registers, which are very much isomorphic to the relevant arithmetic. Why would an intelligence built by humans not be able to be superhuman? The generally accepted definition seems to be "having better than human performance" in which case it seems we've done it many times (like with calculators).

>> Your calculator does have a representation of arithmetic too. It's those bits is moves around in registers, which are very much isomorphic to the relevant arithmetic.

Hm. Strictly speaking I believe my pocket calculator has an FPGA, a general-purpose architecture that in my calculator happens to be programmed for arithmetic, specifically. So I think it's accurate for me to say that, although the calculator has a program and that program certainly is a representation of arithmetic, I have to provide the interpretation of the program and reify the representation as arithmetic.

In other words, the program is a representation of arithmetic to me, not to the calculator. The calculator might as well be programmed to randomly beep, and it wouldn't have any way to know the difference.

(But that'd be a cruel thing to do to the poor calculator).

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

#252

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

eggy wrote: post #245
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> At this point it seems likely that Sedol is actually far outclassed by a superhuman player. I still don't agree that this is the case, and I don't care what a thousand Google-hyped press releases say, beating the best human player in anything is not "superhuman" and "superhuman" performance has not been achieved by anything yet. [1] Why do I think so? Two reasons. One, because you can be entirely human and still b…

I agree somewhat, but then what is your gauge for superhuman if not some type of competition? How do you evaluate it? On another note, Rocky Marciano had the mafia behind him. Harry Haft fought him and was knocked out, and later claimed the mafia told him he had to throw the fight [1]. There's also a good graphic novel about this. Maybe the AI's goons have threatened Sedol or kin ;) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

>> what is your gauge for superhuman if not some type of competition?

To be honest- I don't have one. My intuition is that we can't have a good definition of "superhuman intelligence" because having one would require us to demonstrate superhuman intelligence ourselves. Which is obviously a contradiction.

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

#253

Post by latentspace »

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 ;)

Not according to the jargon file

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/koans.html#id3141241

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

#254

Post by atrudeau »

It would be nice if AlphaGo emitted the estimated probability of it winning every time a move is made. I wonder what this curve looks like. I would imagine mistakes by the human opponent would give nice little jumps in the curve. If the commentary is correct, we would expect very high probability 40-60 minutes into the game. Perhaps something crushing, like 99,9%

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

#256

Post by JabavuAdams »

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…

> What is our purpose if computers can do everything better than us?

Use the computers to engineer ourselves to "superhuman" capabilities.

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

#257

Post by hasenj »

drited wrote: post #217
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?

At least in the case of AlphaGo it was pretty clear that it was dominating the board early on.

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

#258

Post by JabavuAdams »

21 wrote: post #58
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

Do you feel guilty when you break your promise against your cat? Do you even think for a nanosecond if it's ethical to lie to it? Of course, a cat is not conscious. But compared to an AI, we might also be considered pretty low consciousness beings, or at least beings in front of which you don't justify yourself.

> Of course, a cat is not conscious.

Why do you believe this? I don't like cats, but I wouldn't argue that they're not conscious.

Instead of debating the suitcase word "conscious", let me ask: 1) Do you believe that toddlers are conscious? 2) Is there a more precise way to state your belief that doesn't use the word "conscious"?

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

#259

Post by FLUX-YOU »

sangnoir wrote: post #180
FLUX-YOU wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well that's what I'm saying: We can't know if it's being evil unless we know everything about it, and if we knew that, we'd be the supraintelligent beings in the equation. Thinking that it'll go off and dominate the world is thinking about the worst case. So why bother since it's not likely we'd be able to do much about it anyway?

Maybe there's a second AI on the same level as the first and thinks the first AI is evil. We're still dumb as rocks compared to them, but something certainly has that opinion.

Post reply on HN