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

281–290 of 471 posts

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#281

Post by WoodenChair »

Drdrdrq wrote: post #258
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…

Sure, but AlphaGo will probably evolve much faster. In a few years it will run on much smaller devices, as happened to chess programs.

Exactly - the watts comparison is a bad one. Stockfish running on an iPhone (~5 watts?) can play world class chess.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#282

Post by ktRolster »

argonaut wrote: post #92
emcq wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the value/policy model is predictive with a dataset containing only amateur games, but fails to generalize to unseen data with professional games, that seems like a case of overfitting to a dataset only containing amateur games. In this case the expected value network may be different for amateur games than professional games. Is there something I'm missing?

Sorry, I'm being a little academic. Overfitting is when the model fits to noise or error. Overfitting is not synonymous with "inability to generalize beyond the train and test distribution." For all we know AlphaGo has perfectly fit amateur games, but professional games are on a whole different level

Unlikely. Some of AlphaGo's moves were lousy moves, even for an amateur.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#283

Post by Noge_Sako »

denim_chicken wrote: post #190
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…

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…

I don't think this comment should be so shouted down. Besides the politeness that typically comes with these events, it does feel strange to congratulate, on top of normal politeness, Se-dol's victory.

And for a game that was thought to be many decades away in terms of computer capabilities, this probably should be a time to think of the possible consequences of AI improvement and take a close look at it.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#284

Post by zkhalique »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #237
Bud wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely not anything close to gigawatts: ALL of Google (not DeepMind, but the entire company) uses only about 260 megawatts. Probably on the order of one megawatt or so. http://inhabitat.com/infographic-how-much-energy-does-google...

Still, wow! And a human is using 100W or so: (~400 max) https://sustainability.blogs.brynmawr.edu/2012/07/31/underst...

And don't forget, the human grows organically from a complex system of DNA that also codes for way more than playing Go! And is able to perform a lot of tasks very efficiently, including cooperating together on open ended activities.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#285

Post by datadata »

asdfologist wrote: post #256

On a tangential note, apparently AlphaGo has been added to http://www.goratings.org/ , though its current rating of 3533 looks off. Shouldn't it be much higher?

Probably not. Nine games of data is not really that strong of evidence. The algorithm probably gives each player a prior such has assigning one fake loss in order to limit the maximum ranking of players with few games and no losses. This prior is discussed in the paper on the ranking algorithm used here: http://www.remi-coulom.fr/WHR/WHR.pdf

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#286

Post by simondedalus »

vowelless wrote: post #272
ktRolster wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If it really was about money, I don't think he would have spent so much of his life dedicated to Go ...

yeah, not to belabor it, but if you can do something like be a champion in go or chess, chances are you have the mental skillset to do something exponentially more lucrative.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#287

Post by Noge_Sako »

dba7dba wrote: post #124
jerrickhoang wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ke Jie won 8 out of 10 when went against Lee though. Lee is probably not the strongest in the world right now.

Lee is 3rd ranked as of now. He was 1st for almost 10 years before that. Ke Jie is 19 years old. Lee has been a pro for nearly 20 years. Lee is not old but certainly not young. Go game prodigies seem to peak when early 20's, much like mathematicians.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/4gi/age_fluid_intelligence_and_intel...

My personal hypothesis for the reason why Magnus Carlsen is the youngest chess champion of all time is that with the rise of online battles and computer battles, the age where the blend of crystalized intelligence and working intelligence combines lowers.

This has obvious implications for the recent rise of machines immediately correcting human mistakes in mathematics and physics.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#288

Post by Artoemius »

Noge_Sako wrote: post #283
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…

I don't think this comment should be so shouted down. Besides the politeness that typically comes with these events, it does feel strange to congratulate, on top of normal politeness, Se-dol's victory. And for a game that was thought to be many decades away in terms of computer capabilities, this probably should be a time to think of the possible consequences of AI improvement and take a close look at it.

I think (or at least hope) most of the downvotes have nothing to do with congratulations, and only refer to the part where AI is called "an amoral field of study that can potentially delegitimize everything that currently makes humans unique and extraordinary".

That line of reasoning would be worth a laugh, if it wasn't so widespread in the general population.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#289

Post by nopinsight »

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…

Not so coincidentally, "This was when things got weird. From 87 to 101 AlphaGo made a series of very bad moves." [1]

The bad moves in the eyes of humans could be risky bets or the horizon effect. [1] [2] AlphaGo's use of deep neural nets (value networks) to evaluate board positions should significantly help counter the horizon effect, but since move 78 by Lee Sedol which turned the situation around was unexpected by some top pros (Gu Li referred to it as the 'hand of god' [1]), the patterns which follow are likely rare in possible game states and therefore not strongly embedded into the value networks, leading to AlphaGo's loss.

I hope the DeepMind team will help enlighten us on this in the near future.

[1] https://gogameguru.com/lee-sedol-defeats-alphago-masterful-c...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_effect

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#290

Post by omphalos »

hatsunearu wrote: post #236
fhe wrote: post #166

My friends and I (many of us are enthusiastic Go lovers/players) have been following all of the games closely. AlphaGo's mid game today was really strange. Many experts have praised Lee's move 78 as a "divine-inspired" move. While it was a complex setup, in terms of number of searches I can't see it be any more complex than the games before. Indeed because it was a very much a local fight, the number of possible move…

>"divine-inspired" move Just letting others know, this expression is a rather common way of saying a single move that changed the course of the game. There were "divine-inspired moves" that AlphaGo made in the first three games too.

Well it's not exactly common. It's used to describe the very best moves at the highest level of play.
Post reply on HN