Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

gogameguru.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 471 posts

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#241

Post by stray »

Bud wrote: post #211
denim_chicken wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels really weird to see someone being showered with congratulations for beating a computer program. What exactly is he being congratulated for? For probably triggering and then capitalizing on a bug in AlphaGo's AI? For showing that human resolve, perseverance and a "fighting spirit" can trump a flawed AI, at least until the AI gets fixed? For giving DeepMind extremely valuable test data that will only accelerat…

Perhaps you'd like a shot at explaining why AI is an "amoral field of study", and why it could "delegitimize everything that currently makes humans unique and extraordinary"? Dolphins are about as intelligent as us, too. Are dolphins amoral? Do they delegitimize Beethoven, Tesla, Gödel, Einstein, and da Vinci?

Dolphins definitely delegitimize Beethoven.

/s

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#242

Post by hatsunearu »

alanfalcon wrote: post #116
nemonemo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lee asked to be black, because there's 7.5 points advantage for the white who follows the black, and Lee won as a white this time.

Given that Lee was black in games one (due to luck of the draw) and three I expected he would be in game five as well. Perhaps the system permits loser to choose?

normally the color of the 5th game is chosen by the result of the 4th game, but Lee asked to change that rule and make him black, so he can have a shot at beating AlphaGo as black.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#243

Post by greeneggs »

kronion wrote: post #48

After AlphaGo won the first three games, I wondered not if the computer had reached and surpassed human mastery, but instead how many orders of magnitude better it was. Given today's result, it may be only one order, or even less. Perhaps the best human players are relatively close to the maximum skill level for go, and that the pros of the future will not be categorically better than Lee Sedol is today.

Yudkowski argues that on the scale of intelligence, Einstein and a village idiot are basically right next to each other [1]. So once artificial intelligence gets close to matching the village idiot, it is not far from completely thrashing Einstein.

Now if that same picture held for Go, then a situation like this would seem to be impossible. Either the computer should be much worse than a human player, or much better. It would be an incredible coincidence that, at the end of six months of training, the computer happened to be of comparable skill to humans.

For the game of Go, at least, Yudkowski is wrong. What other aspects of intelligence are this way? Yudkowski's picture seems appealing, but perhaps it is wrong for many areas of intelligence.

[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/ql/my_childhood_role_model/

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#244

Post by julie1 »

argonaut wrote: post #51

If it's true that AlphaGo started making a series of bad moves after its mistake on move 79, this might tie into a classic problem with agents trained using reinforcement learning, which is that after making an initial mistake (whether by accident or due to noise, etc.), the agent gets taken into a state it's not familiar with, so it makes another mistake, digging an even deeper hole for itself - the mistakes then co…

It is just a complex system leaving one of this basin of attraction to try to reach another one. (probably because of an evaluation of risk that deemed it).

And for a complex system transitions happens to be sensitive to the conditions and with quite a lot of impredictability.

AI cannot do smooth transitions because they lack the intuition of what smooth means, and that's how to win against them.

1) identify a basin of attraction(apparition of a bounded domain of evolution in a space phase) 2) set the AI in a well known basin by tricking it; 3) imbalance the AI by throwing garbage behaviour that kick him out of the basin in a random direction 4) let the human win in the chaos that ensues.

Of course it is better done with a software to help you. A real time spase phase analysor.

The point is like in a lot of domain, construction of an AI requires more energy than a software for sabotaging it.

But once you get the framework of thoughts to win against an AI you can get all the AI.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#245

Post by haswell »

andrepd wrote: post #235
toolslive wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NN = nomen nescio ("I don't know the name") You use it when you cannot name the source of a quote, or when you would like to protect the source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomen_nescio

Wouldn't "-Unknown" convey the same sense without the possible confusion?

I think this conveys a slightly different meaning.

When I see "-Unknown", I interpret it as "somebody said it, but no one is quite sure who".

"(NN)" in the current thread was used to indicate "I personally don't know", which does not imply the quote is unattributable.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#246

Post by hatsunearu »

versteegen wrote: post #122
uzyn wrote: post #117

It seems Lee Sedol fares better at late to end game than AlphaGo. Makes one wonder if Lee might have won the earlier games had Lee pushed on until the late game stages.

I don't think so. Everyone seems to agree that MCTS only gets stronger in the endgame, and that AlphaGo started making weird moves towards the end because it thought it was already losing, which by definition means there's no strategy leading to a winning position. ...However if it's true that it couldn't find a way out, shouldn't its probability of winning have hit ~0% much earlier? There was still a long time betwe…

maybe the probability was calculated by playing against other alphagos?

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#247

Post by bonzini »

dave2000 wrote: post #234
imron wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what Gary Kasparov attributes as one of the reasons he lost to deep blue.

Well also that the machine could study his style of play, whereas he was playing a stranger; one whose style changed during each game thanks to humans hand altering the logic. Not really fair. At least, different to how humans play chess.

To be fair, Lee Sedol was also changing style during the game. The opening for game 4 is heavily based on the one for game 2, except when he made a mistake.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#248

Post by marcus_holmes »

denim_chicken wrote: post #202
grumpy-buffalo wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about just for playing a good game of Go?

So I suppose the fact that the opponent is a computer program should not be factored into the reaction to Sedol's win at all. I hope your reductionist explanation is not accurate because it would imply that we are already so highly conditioned to machines and to AI that this match is thought to be no different from a match between two humans.

You know that computers beating us at chess allowed us to get better at chess, right?

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#249

Post by ec109685 »

mizzao wrote: post #194

Another way to look at this is just how efficient the human brain is for the same amount of computation. On one hand, we have racks of servers (1920 CPUs and 280 GPUs) [1] using megawatts (gigawatts?) of power, and on the other hand we have a person eating food and using about 100W of power (when physically at rest), of which about 20W is used by the brain. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/216…

We need to keep our brain running 24x7x365, though, so in the long run, deep mind is more efficient.
Post reply on HN