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

AlphaGo Is Not AI

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 172 posts

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#101

Post by unityByFreedom »

vonnik wrote: post #48

The headline for this piece is clickbait. AlphaGo is AI, it's just not strong AI. No AI is strong AI for the moment, but that doesn't mean that the AI we have is uninteresting or a dead end, as the author seems to think. The author and his editors deliberately conflate the two terms in the headline, and clarify after about a paragraph. Sure, AlphaGo is not strong AI. And Abraham Lincoln is dead. And there are lots of…

It's not clickbait. You're being pedantic. It's clear the author meant true / general / strong AI and was merely addressing the hype of some non-AI researchers.

It's a response to people who think because of AlphaGo that we are on the cusp of achieving true / strong / general AI.

> An AI that solves a lot of problems better than humans, and transfers that learning across many problems with relative ease, is getting close to strong AI.

We're not close. See Yann LeCun's statement on AI after AlphaGo [1] and the HN response [2]

[1] https://www.facebook.com/yann.lecun/posts/10153426023477143

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11280744

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#102

Post by unityByFreedom »

dbcurtis wrote: post #99

AlphaGo is not AI in exactly the same way that Aldebaran robots are not robots. Seriously, what do those robots do? They are just one step above Disneyland's pre-programmed animatronics. If this dude wants me to take him seriously, he needs to show me a robot that solves a problem for somebody. Nao is just a waste of perfectly good servos. Or, alternatively, if he insists that Nao is a robot, then I think AlphaGo can…

> People have been saying "___ is not AI" since Claude Shannon built a robot mouse to solve a maze. Then Shannon's chess playing program was "not AI". Humbug.

AI researchers say this because they don't want the hype to lead investors putting money in the wrong places, which could cause another AI winter.

OpenAI is one example. Fortunately, that's a non-profit. If it were profit seeking and they had a large investment that went belly up, it might cause the industry to tank.

That bust will probably happen again in the future. The "scrooges" are just trying to forestall it.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#103

Post by quantum_state »

It wud be beneficial to take a pramagtic approach ... AI or not ... as long as the end product helps human conditions ... we just use ... similar debates happened so many times in the past ... there is really no point to divert the attention ... for the people who know, it is clear the title is a click bait ... for the people who don't know .. they find out this anyway after they click ..

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#105

Post by manquer »

joesb wrote: post #97
hueving wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It uses intuition to play, Not by the normal definition of intuition. It reasons about millions of moves.

Your intuition is probably based on millions of events happened to you and your ancestor (parts that are developed through evolution and social construct).

Equivalent on the side would be million of games in the past either simulation or real human ones, both of which such systems use

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#106

Post by dwringer »

kirrent wrote: post #90
dwringer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for this information, it will definitely be interesting to see how the future of Go plays out. For example, will players be able to train with AlphaGo to the point of being able to beat it?

Even more interesting to me is the question of if Go players will be able to apply the novel strategies of AlphaGo which break with decades of conventional wisdom or if there's something in their execution that requires such perfect play (but leads to a more certain outcome) that they're only feasibly played by AlphaGo.

That's the sort of thing I have wondered about. Chess continues to evolve since the famous Kasparov vs. Deep Blue matches, and from a quick look around human players do continue to draw matches against the strongest computers (even though they are regularly beaten, as well).

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#107

Post by prance »

CJefferson wrote: post #50
chii wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is there any research into making a "generic" AI that can solve any problem without the researcher first having to know what that problem is? i.e., human style learning.

Certainly some very clever people are trying it, and have been since the 60s at least, but as far as i am aware the progress is limited (but it is not my area of expertise). I think the main problem is you end up needing a language to describe the problem, and that ends up limiting the problems that can be solved, or you have to explain so carefully what the problem is it feels like cheating.

As a researcher in multiagent systems, I know this problem very well. Which is, I believe, exactly the point the article makes. But it goes on to say that this might be possible to overcome by embodiment and developmental psychology. Not new arguments for sure, but valid ones, and brought at the right time (a year ago) of a new AI hype.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#108

Post by [deleted] »

dwringer wrote: post #75
Macuyiko wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree, and very happy to see this statement at the top of HN. I'm against hyping up AI or misinterpreting it just as much as the next guy (especially coming from a position where dealing with a lot of higher-management people has made me very wary of articles and vision-pieces from the other end of the spectrum that are all like "invest now in AI or lose it all"), but this is just clickbait for the sake of en…

I wouldn't say the challenge has been "solved" - the system may have only been able to win consistently because the programmers made adjustments and improvements to it between each game. Fitting its heuristics to a specific opponent might actually be overfitting unless it can consistently win against all challengers without being modified between rounds. [edited to clarify uncertainty about "why" it was able to win]

[deleted]

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#109

Post by iopq »

hueving wrote: post #79
iopq wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It uses intuition to play, which is how humans play, but it does it by considering way more positions that humans.

>It uses intuition to play, Not by the normal definition of intuition. It reasons about millions of moves.

The policy network (intuition) is already high dan level, which is stronger than many strong amateurs. That's right, with zero reading it's already something like 5d level.

The other part that increases its strength is the positional evaluation through the value network. It's ALSO intuition based on which points are going to belong to which player.

Those two combined give it a high dan level, maybe around 8d.

Only the last component (Monte-Carlo tree search) is not quite as similar because it uses random game roll-outs to ALSO give an evaluation.

AFAIK, value network evaluation is an overestimate of territories, while the MCTS is an underestimate so using both it's stronger than professional level.

The levels I put is the version that played Lee Sedol. The version that went 50-0 on the Internet is clearly stronger and might already be professional level without MCTS.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#110

Post by visarga »

> AlphaGo Is Not AI

And the questioning article is not real writing. It fails to the standards of "real writing" that I uphold. A real article doesn't come with a clickbait title, and is better documented. I don't think the author knows what he's talking about - instead, just expressing incredulity based off his gut feelings.

Post reply on HN