Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players • Hacker News Board

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#91

Post by lern_too_spel » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #77

rhizome wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, the good part of a computer Rubik's cube solver is not seeing the cube solved in nanoseconds, it's in making the computer. The cube itself is just a unit test.

But a Rubik's cube solver is a single-player, solitaire game. Its fundamentally different. Over in the "Cyborg Chess" community, people have already analyzed LeelaZero vs Stockfish. It turns out that Stockfish is far better at tactics (especially the endgame), while LeelaZero is better at opening positions (aka: Positional play). There are numerous theories about the proper combination: perhaps using an Opening Book…

> So you can build opening book databases to exploit their patterns.

And then program the computer to use that opening book directly. Now what is your cyborg player going to do? After you patch all these easy rules, you will have to discover harder rules, and the computer can discover them faster than you can.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#92

Post by nullc » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

C14L wrote: post #52

yters wrote: post #36

I guess the players don't realize how mismatched they are with the AI. AI spends many, many factors of magnitude more compute to achieve the same goal as a human. There is no comparison between man and machine at this point. From a pure efficiency standpoint, humans are vastly superior.

Maybe in chess, instead of measuring time, they should measure kJ spent.

Stockfish on efficient hardware should handily beat humans even if capped to comparable runtime energy usage. I don't know if the same is true for alphago.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#93

Post by neohaven » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

SchoolboyBlue wrote: post #21

mourner wrote: post #6

> Even if I become the number one, there is an entity that cannot be defeated Hard for me to empathize with this argument for his retirement. If we can't outrun a car, does that make running competitions pointless? The existence of AlphaGo doesn't diminish the triumph of being a number one human player in any way.

I would counter with the fact that in physical endeavors it's apparent to us that we are not #1 - our household cats are more agile than us. It's in matters of intellect that humans still believe they are #1. AlphaGO's achievement in another field would have similar effects, e.g.: - An AI that diagnoses sickness better than any doctor - An AI that generates text which humans believe more beautiful than any other poet…

As a person who likes music, making it, listening to it, breaking it down and hacking it...

Making a classical arrangement that evokes a particular expression in the listener is the job of the musician. If an AI system helps you explore the possibilities there, it's more like a studio musician that's able to improvise. You're still the person, the human, the emotional filter, that picks "This sounds right" or "This doesn't" for a particular situation. It's a judgement call. An emotional one.

An AI might be able to fake it, communicate with it, but it will never replace humans choosing the sounds that please them more than others. Humans communicate through music. It wouldn't surprise me that an AI would be able to as well. I don't think it would necessarily write emotionally strong music, not without human training.

Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is, sure, computers might be able to make music. Ask any guy who messes with modular synthesizers. But they're a tool. The fact an AI can express itself through music is sure as hell not gonna stop me from also expressing myself. It's like arguing "Since AIs will be able to comment on Hacker News, humans won't."

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#94

Post by karmakaze » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

mkhalil wrote: post #82

If this continues to happen, maybe a semi-super intelligent AI will start losing purposely in order to keep the Go community interesting enough to keep it alive. A super-intelligent AI wouldn't care though, since they would infect any host and escape to the internet as soon as it makes sense.

It's unfortunate that there's so much research into AI and not artificial empathy. Even writing that is weird because even AI is intelligence, but what is AE other than fake? I suppose someone has shown that even our empathy is no more authentic.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#95

Post by visarga » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

rosybox wrote: post #30

SchoolboyBlue wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would counter with the fact that in physical endeavors it's apparent to us that we are not #1 - our household cats are more agile than us. It's in matters of intellect that humans still believe they are #1. AlphaGO's achievement in another field would have similar effects, e.g.: - An AI that diagnoses sickness better than any doctor - An AI that generates text which humans believe more beautiful than any other poet…

> An AI that generates text which humans believe more beautiful than any other poetry created - An AI which creates classical arrangements the likes of which we compare to Mozart Hrm, I do think that AI would be able to create narratives that humans find more enjoyable than the work of other humans, and I agree that AI would be able to create pictures and sound that humans find to be more enjoyable to look at or hear…

> because in the end it's just a bunch of code running statistical computations

... says a bunch of neurons that run on chemical reactions and electrical impulses. I think this line of thinking reeks of dualism - it creates a special something that is above explanation, a different essence.

But seriously, I believe the difference comes from embodiment. When we embody our AI friends they will be able to grasp purpose and meaning. We get our meaning from 'the game', when AIs will be players they will understand much better. Let them try out their ideas on the world and see the outcomes, grasp at causality, have a purpose and work on it. This will fill the missing piece. It's not that they are fundamentally limited, it's that we have the benefit of having a body that can interact with the world. Already AIs that work in simulated worlds (board games, video games) are getting better than us. We can't simulate reality in all its glory, and it is expensive to create robotic bodies. On the other hand humans and our ancestors have had access to the world from the beginning.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#96

Post by friendlybus » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

mourner wrote: post #6

> Even if I become the number one, there is an entity that cannot be defeated Hard for me to empathize with this argument for his retirement. If we can't outrun a car, does that make running competitions pointless? The existence of AlphaGo doesn't diminish the triumph of being a number one human player in any way.

He set out to be number one and he isn't anymore, I get that as a personal story. That's all he was aiming at.

Cars and legs are apples and oranges. We have a car racing category, motorsport. Racing categories have very tightly defined specs to keep driver skill in the game. Stock cars and open wheelers limit how much traction control they can use otherwise it becomes too easy.

This is like cyborg legs being invented and smashing all the records. It would take some of the shine off running for sure.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#97

Post by pretendscholar » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

This is why being the best at something is always a bit of an arbitrary level of ability. If there were only 100,000 humans I would stand a pretty good chance at training to be one of the best basketball players in existence. If there were a trillion people lebron would be struggling for a bench spot. I think its healthier to have some other type of goal generally.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#98

Post by dragontamer » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #91

dragontamer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a Rubik's cube solver is a single-player, solitaire game. Its fundamentally different. Over in the "Cyborg Chess" community, people have already analyzed LeelaZero vs Stockfish. It turns out that Stockfish is far better at tactics (especially the endgame), while LeelaZero is better at opening positions (aka: Positional play). There are numerous theories about the proper combination: perhaps using an Opening Book…

> So you can build opening book databases to exploit their patterns. And then program the computer to use that opening book directly. Now what is your cyborg player going to do? After you patch all these easy rules, you will have to discover harder rules, and the computer can discover them faster than you can.

> Now what is your cyborg player going to do?

Build and configure the machine better. Quick, tell me, what's better at playing Chess:

* Or is Xeon Platinum 8180 with maximum 8-way SMT memory sharing with a big-ol 1TB shared transposition table the fastest computer?

* Or will it be cheaper to rent AWS-instances with their V100 GPU in the cloud? Or is the latency for the remote-access bad?

--------

The cyborg player has to still build and program the machine to compete. It is all part of the competition. Can you run a transposition table shared between chess engines over RDMA 10Gbit SFP+ Fiber? Or is that too slow?

-----

This isn't hypothetical at all. The winner of the World Computer Chess Championship 2019 was 8 x Intel Xeon Platinum 8168 running Komodo vs 24 x Amazon AWS Intel Xeon E5 running Shredder.

Configuring and building the computer is still an incredibly difficult part of cyborg chess.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#99

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

mourner wrote: post #6

> Even if I become the number one, there is an entity that cannot be defeated Hard for me to empathize with this argument for his retirement. If we can't outrun a car, does that make running competitions pointless? The existence of AlphaGo doesn't diminish the triumph of being a number one human player in any way.

[deleted]

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#100

Post by tzs » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

drdeca wrote: post #80

sorenn111 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No human could successfully beat stockfish on any consistent basis. Maybe the best players in the world would draw a few games with a rare victory, but its tactical depth is just too deep

Can a team of (human + weaker AI) beat (stronger AI)?

There was a four game match a few years ago where Hikaru Nakamura, #5 in the world at the time, played four games again Stockfish.

For two of the games, Nakamura had access to Rybka which was about 200 rating points weaker than Stockfish. Stockfish won one and the other was a draw.

For the other two games Nakamura did not have Rybka, but had white and pawn odds. Again, one win for Stockfish (b pawn odds) and one draw (h pawn odds).

In all the games, Stockfish was playing without its opening book and its endgame tablebases. It was running on a 3 GHz 8-core Mac Pro.

The games are here [1].

[1] https://www.chess.com/news/view/stockfish-outlasts-nakamura-...