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

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

en.yna.co.kr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 554 posts

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

#121

Post by saalweachter »

wolco wrote: post #39
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…

Doesn't mean we stop making music or poetry. Because the perfect note or word structure without the backstory takes away from the experience. If someone has a history it becomes part of the poem or song to the listener. The doctor could be replaced though or used as a secondary verifier. The song is a funny thing. It could be given to a cool looking group and do well. It could be given to someone older and flop. The…

"Because there is a better poet" has seldom been an impediment to a young poet inflicting their works on the world.

I am worried about the ability of an AI to generate an infinite number of Dresden Files or Cosmere books on demand, because I already drop everything when a new one comes out and read without sleeping until I am finished.

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

#122

Post by dragontamer »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #111
dragontamer wrote: post #35

While I can understand Lee Se-dol's frustration, I think there are better lessons to learn from Kasparov's acceptance after the Deep Blue vs Kasparov matches. Cyborg chess is the future of chess. Period. Chess players use computers to train themselves and explore openings in human-only settings, while programmers / cyborgs play correspondence chess. Go is not finished as a game. A new tool, MCTS + Neural nets, has be…

We should note that Kasparov was actually wrong at the time. Alpha Zero has proved this by smashing Stockfish every time it plays it. The contemporary thinking around chess theory including the measures that DeepBlue would brute-force towards were inherently lossy and nobody figured it hard enough. Technically, at that time DeepBlue could have been beaten by understanding Alpha Zero's theorems before Alpha Zero disco…

> Alpha Zero has proved this by smashing Stockfish every time it plays it.

Google played Alpha Zero vs Stockfish under their own conditions. I think this was a mistake to stay in the labs by themselves.

I think Google would have benefited from participating in WCCC 2019 for example, where Johnny (1200x core cluster) won the day.

----------

Its a completely different field when you're actually competing against someone else. Google did some impressive things in the lab for sure, but they have NOT actually stepped into the competitive ring yet.

I'm sure AlphaZero is good, and probably would make a good showing at one of these contests. But you're putting the cart before the horse here.

EDIT: Maybe MCTS + Neural Nets truly is the superior way of preparing board game knowledge? If so, the next step is building out the opening-database and to start looking for holes where AlphaZero loses. It wasn't a complete blowout: AlphaZero lost some games to Stockfish. Why did AlphaZero lose in those games? Is there a set of opening moves that will lead AlphaZero down that losing path in a true competitive setting?

---------

EDIT: Case in point: Google did NOT incorporate randomness into AlphaZero's algorithm. It always chose the best move it believed in, this leads it prone to opening database attacks. See how the competitive mindset already messed AlphaZero's careful laboratory preparation up already?

Sure, AlphaZero 2.0 might have programmed randomness added to it, if this were a true competitive environment. But that's how cyborg chess evolves: I point out a weakness in the program, exploit it in a game, and then Google goes back to their labs to make something better next year.

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

#123

Post by nottorp »

Not being a champion, I don't mind keeping playing against other humans for fun.

The problem is, online there is no guarantee your opponent isn't using a computer to cheat. So I guess the only way to play for fun is to go to a face to face club, if one exists.

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

#124

Post by moonbug »

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.

Running competitions are pointless.

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

#125

Post by blattimwind »

ckosidows wrote: post #57
grenoire wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What assumptions are you basing this on, curious to know if horses have a disadvantage over longer durations.

I would recommend reading _Born to Run_ by Christopher McDougall. Later in the book he addresses this very topic and expands much more upon the topic of humans and long-distance running. Humans sweat, which most (all?) other animals don't. In that way we can dissipate heat through our breath, like other animals, _and_ via perspiration, meaning it takes us much longer to overheat. Additionally, humans stand upright, a…

Horses are part of a not that long list of mammals that do sweat almost all over their body. That is indeed one of the reasons why they are competitive with humans at running long distances.

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

#126

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 »

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 also found this to be a weird statement. Chess AI has been beating world champions since... 1996? Yet championship chess tournaments are alive and well, and I don’t recall any players “retiring” in 1996.

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

#127

Post by bingerman »

nullc wrote: post #92
C14L wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have the impression that at least the training phase of alphago needs much resources to achieve superior results, though it would be nice to see some "exact" numbers. IMO combined limit for runtime+training energy would be the best way to keep things interesting.

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

#128

Post by visarga »

asfarley wrote: post #58
rosybox wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This is degrading and short-sighted. Why wouldn't an AI fear death? What is your fundamental reason for thinking that silicon-based computation is better than neurotransmitter-based computation? How can you believe that any two forms of computation are fundamentally different, despite countless examples of different systems all being equivalent in the Turing-completeness sense? I believe that arguments like yours, in…

> silicon based computation is better than neurotransmitter based computation

The fundamental difference is not computation, but self replication. We are self replicators, and in our multiplication we evolve and adapt. Death is an integral part of self replication, we understand it fear it because our main purpose is to live.

An AI might not have these notions if it was only trained to do a simple task. But if it was a part of a population that was under evolution (using genetic algorithms), then it might have notions of life and death and fear its demise.

AlphaGo, by the way, used genetic programming to evolve a series of agents, this approach is quite effective. It just takes a ton of computation, just like nature had to spend a lot of time evolving us.

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

#129

Post by tozeur »

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.

This is PR mumbo jumbo. The hype machine for alphaGo is strong.

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

#130

Post by patmcc »

neohaven wrote: post #93
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…

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 d…

>>>The fact an AI can express itself through music is sure as hell not gonna stop me from also expressing myself.

I think this is the key; if you're making music for your own reasons, no AI (or Mozart) would stop you. But if you're trying to make money at it, or desperately want listeners, you may eventually be on the "losing" side.

Post reply on HN