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

Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 214 posts

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#131

Post by skj »

1024core wrote: post #107
stouset wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As computers are able to evaluate positions faster (and therefore deeper), the "godlike" tactics are dominating over human-style strategy. It used to be that computers played "computer-like" moves because they didn't understand the position. Now, they play computer-like moves because "understanding" the position isn't as important as just being able to see 25+ moves ahead. In a nutshell, positional play in chess is s…

> Now, they play computer-like moves because "understanding" the position isn't as important as just being able to see 25+ moves ahead. I don't think you can "see 25+ moves ahead" in Go. The branchout factor is just too big.

One of the nice things about Go is that branches rejoin quite a bit, mitigating some of the branching factor concerns.

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#133

Post by Locke1689 »

iopq wrote: post #128
conanbatt wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a semi-pro player I can assure you thats not how you play Go.

That's just appeal to authority. Lee Sedol's move against AlphaGo in game 4 could be considered a trap because it actually didn't work, but it was complicated enough to trick AlphaGo.

Appeal to authority is only deductively invalid, not inductively invalid.

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#134

Post by Retric »

jkkramer wrote: post #26
dfan wrote: post #7

One thing that isn't made clear in this writeup is that Master plays in a very nonhuman style, as opposed to the version of AlphaGo that beat Lee Sedol, which mostly played like a strong human except for a few surprising moves. My first guess when I saw Master's games was that it was a program like AlphaGo that had its policy network trained from scratch rather than being bootstrapped by being given the goal of imita…

I would call its style unorthodox rather than nonhuman. It still plays common josekis (standard opening sequences) but often chooses uncommon variations. Its mid game is full of startling moves backed by VERY good reading. There's definitely still discernible strategy that us mortals can learn from. If I recall correctly, the version that beat Lee Sedol was trained on amateur games plus self-play. My guess would be t…

Perfect play is likely inhumanly aggressive on blacks part part and white making zero moves. Compared to that this is very human style of gameplay simply based on a different strategy culture as it where.

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#135

Post by noam87 »

btilly wrote: post #81
oconnor0 wrote: post #45

> Go is regarded as the most complex board game ever invented I'm not sure that's an accurate statement.

How about the following statement? "There is no widely played game for which an Elo rating system shows a larger measurable range of skill than Go." This is a precise and measurable statement. The standard deviation of the Elo system used in Chess is 200, and the range from the best humans to rank amateurs is 14 times this standard deviation. When the Elo system was adapted to Go, the standard deviation was set to 10…

By this measure, is there a more complex game than Go, but which is not as widely played?

(Question from someone who does not know anything about board games.)

I ask because a natural question arises: can one engineer a game specifically so that it is extremely difficult for a machine to master compared to a human -- due to some strategic complexity, or some approach that does not lend itself well for current AI models.

edit: looks like there's at least one http://arimaa.com/arimaa/

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#136

Post by kenshaw »

kirse wrote: post #129
stouset wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As computers are able to evaluate positions faster (and therefore deeper), the "godlike" tactics are dominating over human-style strategy. It used to be that computers played "computer-like" moves because they didn't understand the position. Now, they play computer-like moves because "understanding" the position isn't as important as just being able to see 25+ moves ahead. In a nutshell, positional play in chess is s…

they'll happily enter lines where their pawn structures are shattered... Makes you wonder if computers will essentially ruin all the novelty of innovating and discovering new tricks/strategies in age-old games. No more will genius' have their moments of brilliance and improvisation that lead to a stunning victory or upset. No more will commentators debate and regal over phenomenal victories in ages past. With a compu…

Probably. I think it basically proves that any rule structured game without randomness is solvable.

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#137

Post by hyeonwho2 »

kenshaw wrote: post #136
kirse wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they'll happily enter lines where their pawn structures are shattered... Makes you wonder if computers will essentially ruin all the novelty of innovating and discovering new tricks/strategies in age-old games. No more will genius' have their moments of brilliance and improvisation that lead to a stunning victory or upset. No more will commentators debate and regal over phenomenal victories in ages past. With a compu…

Probably. I think it basically proves that any rule structured game without randomness is solvable.

Probably still solvable with randomness. Add a few more layers of convolution networks.

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#138

Post by sweetjesus »

if their goal was to reveal what they were doing to the world, this is a fine way to go about it and build some anticipation and get a PR splash.

if their goal was to train the best go-bot, they could have had it play not to win but to go down to the wire with very strong players but frequently lose.* Experienced players might have identified it as a bot, but would have dismissed it as "not good enough yet"

*especially as per the recent story that children don't learn when they win, so trains yourself without training your opponents :)

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#139

Post by btilly »

noam87 wrote: post #135
btilly wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the following statement? "There is no widely played game for which an Elo rating system shows a larger measurable range of skill than Go." This is a precise and measurable statement. The standard deviation of the Elo system used in Chess is 200, and the range from the best humans to rank amateurs is 14 times this standard deviation. When the Elo system was adapted to Go, the standard deviation was set to 10…

By this measure, is there a more complex game than Go, but which is not as widely played? (Question from someone who does not know anything about board games.) I ask because a natural question arises: can one engineer a game specifically so that it is extremely difficult for a machine to master compared to a human -- due to some strategic complexity, or some approach that does not lend itself well for current AI mode…

Probably not.

Even if a game was more potentially complex than Go, it would be hard to establish the dynamic range of Elo ratings unless a lot of people played it, and hard for skill variation to be that high unless a lot of people studied very hard to become very good at it.

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#140

Post by Deimorz »

daveguy wrote: post #119
skmurphy wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"past event horizon for human understanding" I think you are too pessimistic and that "centaur Go" will evolve in the same way that "centaur chess" is, where a player (or team of players) with access to the software can outperform the stand-alone software. I guess my vote is for "intelligence augmentation" over AI, if only because opaque models/algorithms cannot benefit from human creativity.

Centaur chess players do not outperform the best chess engines. That is based on a misrepresentation of one of the first centaur chess tournaments. Human modified moves only reduce the strength of the best chess engines now. The benefit that was reported was one of tactics one centaur chess competitor had over other centaur chess competitors , not centaur chess vs stand alone chess engine. It is a misunderstanding th…

And it's such a strange claim, you'd think it would be obvious that it makes no sense. Nobody would ever try to claim "I think that a team of a top pro and a mediocre amateur would be stronger than the top pro alone", but that's basically what they're doing with centaur chess.
Post reply on HN