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

411–420 of 428 posts

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

#411

Post by mrob »

kybernetikos wrote: post #391

Go was the last perfect information game I knew where the best humans outperformed the best computers. Anyone know any others? Are all perfect information games lost at this point? Can we design one to keep us winning?

I know of one attempt to design such a game: Arimaa. Playable on a chess board, Arimaa has an even bigger game tree than Go. It's a great game, and fun to play, but as an anti-computer design it has recently failed.

There has been an annual humans vs computers challenge match every year since 2004, and in 2015 computers won with David Wu's software "Sharp". Despite the very high branching factor, standard chess AI techniques turned out to be applicable when combined with high quality hand written heuristics for positional evaluation and candidate move generation. The software is described in detail here:

http://icosahedral.net/downloads/djwu2015arimaa_color.pdf

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

#412

Post by starshadowx2 »

pmyjavec wrote: post #397
starshadowx2 wrote: post #30

I'm very interested to see what the Google DeepMind team applies themselves to in the future.

That's going to be getting to know even more about you and the probability of you clicking on an advertisement, stakeholder, shareholder profits!

I don't understand your comment.

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

#413

Post by ilaksh »

rwallace wrote: post #341
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 problem with 'flag and footprints' demonstrations is precisely the same as their attraction - they are, in essence (even though that was not the intent), selected to be as misleading as possible about progress in solving the real problems. We put a man on the moon, which encouraged decades of optimism about the near-future colonization of space... unfortunately it turns out we are nowhere near solving the hard pr…

Sorry but more research will reveal massive progress in the fields connected to those ideals. Please research some more, you have missed quite a few developments.

For example, long stays in large space stations, landing craft on Mars, successful isolation sustainability experiments, 14nm chips and understanding of quantum concerns, multi-layer chips, beginnings of optical computing, biological/genetic chemical synthesis, neuromorphic chips, etc.

Deep reinforcement learning is undeniably a major step forward for general intelligence.

You and others with your belief system will still be in denial up to and past the point where your species becomes irrelevant as the superintelligent AIs arrive within a few decades.

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

#414

Post by theoh »

jmathes wrote: post #333
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…

It sounds like the point of this story is to illustrate by analogy that starting from first principles is sometimes a silly way to approach a problem, and by extrapolation that it's a silly way to make an AI that plays Go well. Making an AI that plays Go well is not (and has never been) the real goal. They're trying to learn how to build a AI that can solve any problem.

The Taoist concept of the uncarved block, referenced in the title of the koan, refers to naturalness and simplicity. I'm sure someone more expert than me can give a better explanation but it seems highly relevant to the idea of learning to play Go based only on the rules, rather than any human tradition of strategy.

http://taomanor.org/pu.html

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

#415

Post by daveguy »

_snydly wrote: post #38
hyperion2010 wrote: post #16

I really want to see how a team of humans would do against alpha-go with a 3 or 4 hour time limit.

Yeah, if AlphaGO wins all 5, I'd next like to see some Blitz Go (if that's a thing).

Blitz go would be even more heavily favored toward AlphaGo. AG didn't spend more than 10 seconds or so per move until the meat of the midgame. Human pros were losing blitz chess long before they were losing long game chess.

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

#416

Post by daveguy »

tunichtgut wrote: post #206
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.

Not all games came from a database. It was initialized with a database. It has played millions of games against itself to improve beyond that. Next they will skip the bootsrap initialization and use all self play.

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

#418

Post by pixl97 »

mike_hearn wrote: post #201
stephenboyd wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>within lots of other very complex constraints, like law, morality, how much time they have available

Ha, if that were true we wouldn't be constantly extending the law and putting people in jail because they keep breaking the law for profit.

>ivilisation can't work because humans will want to make as much money as possible

And yet we keep running into issues with long term pollution and environmental degradation because of the growth of civilization.

>whether they feel they already have sufficient money for their own needs,

Does greed have bounds?

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

#419

Post by duskwuff »

JibberMeTimbers wrote: post #284
21 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, after StarCraft they suggested 3D games (eg: Call of Duty, ...). Mind you, this is playing based on the pixels, not based on direct access to the game structures as bots do today. The from playing Call of Duty to controling a robot with a gun in the real world it's a small step :)

I don't like the idea of FPS'. We'd expect them to behave the humans when they play FPS - they run looking forward and will occasionally look left or right and follow some predetermined pathing that they are familiar with. With an AI, if we base it on pixels, what they will do is spin around 360 degrees about 60 times a second while moving forward so that it can maximize all of the pixels inputted at a time. It would…

The same would likely be true of an RTS. An AI could scroll the viewport around and click units to issue orders at ludicrous speeds. Even if it had to use the same interface as a human, it'd still have a huge mechanical advantage.

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

#420

Post by ionforce »

argonaut wrote: post #247
anonaoeu wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Such an entity would not be hyper-intelligent. It would be idiotic. One huge hole for me in the paperclip argument is that an AI capable of that kind of power would not be stupid enough to misinterpret a command - it would be intelligent enough to infer human desires.

You're making the assumption that human desires would matter to an AI.
Post reply on HN