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

261–270 of 471 posts

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#261

Post by rwallace »

dannysu wrote: post #109

In the post-game press conference I think Lee Sedol said something like "Before the matches I was thinking the result would be 5-0 or 4-1 in my favor, but then I lost 3 straight... I would not exchange this win for anything in the world." Demis Hassabis said of Lee Sedol: "Incredible fighting spirit after 3 defeats" I can definitely relate to what Lee Sedol might be feeling. Very happy for both sides. The fact that p…

Yep! As someone who was rooting for DeepMind, I like this result, for two reasons: Lee Sedol earned it - he's behaved like a true sportsman all the way - and it gives us some interesting information (yesterday we only had a lower bound on AlphaGo's strength; today we also have an upper bound).

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#262

Post by froogle »

greeneggs wrote: post #243
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.…

AlphaGo is not an AI in the sense meant by Yudkowsky, I believe. He speaks more of a recursively self-improving AI, an AI which is capable of upgrading itself to be faster and more intelligent.

In the linked article, Yudkowsky even says "On the right side of the scale, you would find Deep Thought—Douglas Adams's original version, thank you, not the chessplayer." The implication is clear that these programs playing chess/Go are nothing like what he is talking about - general AI.

Or so I assume, from my less-than-complete understanding of Yudkowsky's writings.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#263

Post by hendekagon »

jessaustin wrote: post #186
hendekagon wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living flesh is not meat. Meat is what we call dead flesh. A living brain is made of neural nano-processors.

This is a matter of perspective. If you were a tiger, you would consider anything that walks or crawls to be "meat".

When the tiger has killed it, it's dead & is then meat, yes

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#264

Post by saulrh »

alphydan wrote: post #193
praptak wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pros themselves estimate their strength 3-4 stones handicap below God: http://senseis.xmp.net/?KamiNoItte :

Exactly what heuristics would they use to know how an omniscient being would play? Unless there are some strong arguments behind it, it sounds like arrogant BS.

Maybe they're extrapolating from relaxed instances that they've solved? If you know that humans can play pretty much optimally on, say, 11x11, and you know how much performance drops off with each expansion of the board?

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#265

Post by mortehu »

userbinator wrote: post #254
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 can estimate the power consumption: 1920 CPUs as in cores, or physical packages? If the latter they are ~100W each, so that's 192kW; if it's the former, depending on how many cores per package, a fraction of that. The GPUs are likely to be counting physical packages (and not cores, which is much more) and they draw 300-400W each, for a total of ~300kW. Add a bit of overhead and I'd say 500kW (half a megawatt) is a…

The figures quoted for the cluster are about 25 times higher than those quoted for a single machine, so I would guess the cluster consists of 25 machines. 20 kW, or 166 amperes at 120 volts, per machine seems a bit high to me.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#266

Post by SilasX »

mikeyouse wrote: post #11

Relevant tweets from Demis; Lee Sedol is playing brilliantly! #AlphaGo thought it was doing well, but got confused on move 87. We are in trouble now... Mistake was on move 79, but #AlphaGo only came to that realisation on around move 87 When I say 'thought' and 'realisation' I just mean the output of #AlphaGo value net. It was around 70% at move 79 and then dived on move 87 Lee Sedol wins game 4!!! Congratulations! H…

OT: What's with using monotype for quotes? That's breaks line wrapping and makes it hard to read on mobile or small screens. I don't get why people do it.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#267

Post by jkyle »

SilasX wrote: post #266
mikeyouse wrote: post #11

Relevant tweets from Demis; Lee Sedol is playing brilliantly! #AlphaGo thought it was doing well, but got confused on move 87. We are in trouble now... Mistake was on move 79, but #AlphaGo only came to that realisation on around move 87 When I say 'thought' and 'realisation' I just mean the output of #AlphaGo value net. It was around 70% at move 79 and then dived on move 87 Lee Sedol wins game 4!!! Congratulations! H…

OT: What's with using monotype for quotes? That's breaks line wrapping and makes it hard to read on mobile or small screens. I don't get why people do it.

Looks good in desktop browsers.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#268

Post by ktRolster »

glasslion wrote: post #225
comboy wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll risk assumption that somebody from Deepmind team is reading this. Guys, please, publish charts of win prob estimated by alpha go in time during these games. Some heatmap telling which moves did it consider as best for both sides during the games would also be cool, but that's surely more time consuming to prepare. It would be great to be able to have such things for top pro tournaments in the future.

Actually, it's a tradition that both Players should replay the game after the match, discuss about good moves, bad moves and what they were thinking during the match. I felt so sorry for Lee Sedol when I saw him lose the second match, facing an empty chair ,and he could only ask one of his friend to review the game. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%8D%E7%9B%98

He made $30k for losing that game, so I don't feel too sorry for him.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#269

Post by betenoire »

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 are about as intelligent as us, too. Are dolphins amoral? Do they delegitimize Beethoven, Tesla, Gödel, Einstein, and da Vinci?

If we invented dolphins, and they began to replace and displace us, then maybe? I don't think it is about the intelligence, but in how we use it of course. Dolphins don't really have any control of my life or those around me.

That sounded a lot more paranoid than I meant, I actually agree with what I think you are saying

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#270

Post by jballanc »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #231
Filligree wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could also be that human-looking moves are already close to the best possible. Neither AlphaGo nor human players can play god's hand, but they're approaching the same location.

Is Go-Space understood well enough to know either way? The OMG-AI people claim that AGI would be dangerous because it would reliably innovate in new spaces and out-predict humans. So a true super-AGI would make go moves that were unexpected and incomprehensible with some percentage of misleading fake-outs, but it would still win most or all of the time. If the human exploration of Go-Space is close to the god's hand…

My intuition (and it's really only just that) is that Go space is large enough that AI would be able to outplay humans while still not even beginning to approach "perfect" play. If so, then I would also expect that humans should be able to follow the lead of AI into new areas of Go space, and outplay the AI (at least until the AI has a chance to learn and catch up).

We'll know if this is the case in a couple of years, if the competition between human and AI goes back-and-forth (unlike Chess, where after AI was good enough to beat humans, it could do so reliably).

Either way, it's interesting to note that AlphaGo had literally thousands of games to learn from to find weaknesses in human play, but Lee Sedol seems to have only needed 3 before he was able to find weaknesses in AlphaGo's play.

Post reply on HN