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

121–130 of 172 posts

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#121

Post by tazjin »

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]

I believe that there was a sort of "learning freeze" for AlphaGo during the Lee Sedol games and there was no manual modification of its strategy either.

If I recall correctly this was part of the commentary during the matches so I can't find a good source for it right now.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#122

Post by pron »

didibus wrote: post #57
pron wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a "weak AI"? Does any algorithm that is able to adapt its behavior by learning qualify as "weak AI"? If so, why call it AI at all?

"the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior" That's what I would define as weak AI. So yes, even algorithms which do not adapt their behaviors by learning, but can imitate intelligent human behavior to some extent would be weak AI, such as AI in video games. Now strong AI would be: "the capability of a machine to originate intelligent human behavior" This means the intelligent behavior would or…

> So yes, even algorithms which do not adapt their behaviors by learning, but can imitate intelligent human behavior to some extent would be weak AI

Replacing various human thought capabilities has been the goal of computers and algorithms since Turing and von Neumann.

> in that they find ways to even outperform a human, by themselves, through the learning process

Computers have been outperforming humans in many tasks since the moment of their creation. Some animals learn some things better than humans. Are they more intelligent?

> Machine Learning is seen as the be all, end all of AI.

I think it is seen as that mostly by non-experts, and generally by those who just want to believe we're close.

> At the same time, having a way to automate decision making of a single simple task is huge in terms of potential. There's so many things we can automate through this, and if we combine them, you can create even more complex autonomous machines.

Sure, I just don't see what any of this has to do with intelligence. Bacteria are autonomous, and so is the weather. The universe, too, for that matter. None of those is particularly intelligent.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#123

Post by pron »

joepanda wrote: post #84
pron wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've made a circular definition. And I wasn't claiming that only nerve cells can form intelligence, but I think that if we expand the definition beyond what people normally call intelligent, then we should be more precise than the vague "ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments" or else every complex adaptive system would be called intelligent, in which case we can drop that name because we already…

I wasn't to give a definition. Just refuting your claim that nobody would consider a tardigrade intelligent.

But if a tardigrade is intelligent then so are bacteria and even viruses. While you can define intelligence how you like, I don't think this coincides with common usage. In fact, you've extended the definition so much that it just means "life" or even a complex adaptive system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system). If by intelligent you mean "alive" or "complex adaptive system", why use the word intelligent?

Also, if intelligence means "achieving goals in a wide range of environments", then I think some computer viruses are far more intelligent -- by this definition -- than even the most advanced machine-learning software to date.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#124

Post by Dzugaru »

pps43 wrote: post #100
kirrent wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure about human players, but it might be possible to build an adversarial neural network that beats AlphaGo (and only AlphaGo).

I thought AlphaGo is trained in an adversarial manner already (it plays against itself).

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#125

Post by fhe »

dwringer wrote: post #86
kirrent wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AlphaGo played plenty of games online after the Lee Seedol match. It went 60-0 against some of the worlds best players. Granted they were fast games but that's a challenge for AlphaGo as well as its adversaries.

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?

The one game that Lee managed to defeat AlphaGo was probably the last time any human player was able to beat the strongest Go program at the time. That said, there are a few interesting ideas to try, and I (being a reasonably strong amateur go enthusiast myself) would love to see Google try out:

1. how many handicaps can AlphaGo give to human players, while still come out winning? the idea of handicap is basically the stronger player lets the weaker player a few "freebie moves" before the game proper starts. For reference, a typical professional player can give 2 to 3 handicaps to the strongest amateurs.

2. Can AlphaGo defeat a group of professional who are also given unlimited time to think and discuss?

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#126

Post by yiyus »

fhe wrote: post #125
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?

The one game that Lee managed to defeat AlphaGo was probably the last time any human player was able to beat the strongest Go program at the time. That said, there are a few interesting ideas to try, and I (being a reasonably strong amateur go enthusiast myself) would love to see Google try out: 1. how many handicaps can AlphaGo give to human players, while still come out winning? the idea of handicap is basically th…

Making a group of professionals with unlimited time to arrive to a common conclusion may be a harder challenge than AI. I would love to follow those discussions, but I am not sure they would ever end.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#127

Post by yiyus »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #101
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 c…

It is easy to see if a title is clickbait or not. Just change it with some stupidly long title, such as "AlphaGo does not solve the problem of meaning, so it is not AGI" and ask yourself if this title would have generated a similar number of clicks. The title is as clickbait as it can get.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#128

Post by eutectic »

fhe wrote: post #125
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?

The one game that Lee managed to defeat AlphaGo was probably the last time any human player was able to beat the strongest Go program at the time. That said, there are a few interesting ideas to try, and I (being a reasonably strong amateur go enthusiast myself) would love to see Google try out: 1. how many handicaps can AlphaGo give to human players, while still come out winning? the idea of handicap is basically th…

I believe the AlphaGo team estimated it to be about 2 stones stronger than top pros.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#129

Post by enord »

philipkglass wrote: post #20
mafribe wrote: post #3

One of the co-founders of DeepMind (Shane Legg) has provided the following definition of intelligence: "Intelligence measures an agent’s ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments" in [1]. This definition has been pretty influential, and in the sense of this definition, AlphaGo is not AI. But it is a great step towards AI. [1] S. Legg, M. Hutter, Universal Intelligence: A Definition of Machine Intellige…

This definition has the (unintentional?) effect of defining-away human intelligence. By the time a machine can demonstrate "enough" achievement in different domains to be called intelligent, the same high bar would disqualify any actual human being. If "a machine has to master backgammon, chess and poker, not just be a world champion at one of them" is a prerequisite for intelligence, then I don't think that any one…

In a sense, defining away human intelligence is the whole point. We have no servicable definition of intelligence other than a behaviourist black box embodied by humans. From the perpective of AI-research any progress will chip away bits from the intelligence black-box and still the resulting AI will be out of reach of "true" intelligence. Since we have little knowledge of the internal structure of "intelligence" as a phenomenon, we can't tell how much is left to discover about it.

From the other end, the merits of production AI will be measured against isolated properties pulled out of the intellgence black-box, and since intelligence remains undefined (in a strict ontological sense), debate ensues.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#130

Post by vog »

CJefferson wrote: post #28
59nadir wrote: post #2

The piece really makes the only point worth making in the beginning: > What is AI and what is not AI is, to some extent, a matter of definition. It is by the general and widely used definition that AlphaGo is actually an AI. It just happens to solve one very specific problem very well, making it a weak AI. > Again, the rapid advances of deep learning and the recent success of this kind of AI at games like Go are very…

Speaking as an AI researcher, almost nothing is "AI" research. In practice i feel most current AI research falls into two categories: * Fuzzy problems -- image, sound and free text recognition. Where there is no real "true answer". * Problems too hard to solve in a reasonable time without heuristics -- SAT, scheduling, etc. In practice NP-hard problems and further up the complexity heirachy -- AlphaGo goes here. Once…

> Once we know how to do something reliably, it stops being AI and just becomes "an algorithm" :)

This.

AI is a moving definition and always seems to be "What we can't do right now."

Post reply on HN