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

131–140 of 554 posts

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

#131

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 »

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…

I don’t think so. AI is a tool. It doesn’t make any sense to say “a screwdriver can now screw things in better than a person” anymore than saying an “AI can diagnose better than any doctor”. The doctors use AI just like a mechanic uses a screw driver.

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

#132

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

mac01021 wrote: post #28
ronilan wrote: post #4

> "With the debut of AI in Go games, I've realized that I'm not at the top even if I become the number one through frantic efforts,” There is something sad about this comment. It’s as if, even while standing at the peak, he doesn’t grasp what being “at top” actually is. Would Eliud Kipchoge say the same thing about a motorcycle?

I always thought Kasparov was granted a tremendous opportunity by the advent of computer chess. He spent his life honing his skills, becoming better and better at chess until he was the very best. And then, when noone could challenge him, technology emerged that would allow him to continue being challenged and improving his chess game. Something no other human could allow him to do. Granted, I'm pretty ignorant about…

> And then, when noone could challenge him, technology emerged that would allow him to continue being challenged and improving his chess game.

That technology's name? Vladimir Kramnik.

At the time DeepBlue beat Kasparov, Kasparov was honestly still probably better than the computer. He just had a bad match. That was basically demonstrated by his and Kramnik's matches against presumably better computers (than DeepBlue) in the early-to-mid 2000s, which ended in draws. But Kramnik was also a strong competitor to Kasparov in the late 1990s into the 2000s.

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

#133

Post by soup10 »

rifung wrote: post #64
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…

> I would imagine that in any of those situations some doctors, authors, and musicians alike would be devastated. You don't even have to compare yourself to AI for this mentality though. There are people who choose not to compete in things because they don't believe they'll ever be as good as other humans. I assume must composers don't go into music thinking they are going to be as great as Beethoven. I believe there…

I assure you, plenty of musicians have sun-sized ego's

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

#134

Post by naveen99 »

Obvious solution is to switch the competition to programming. Build and train a neural network with some limitations compute, memory, time, and see whose program wins at go.

A simple go engine can be as simple as 540 lines of pure python without any external libraries: https://github.com/pasky/michi

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

#135

Post by amelius »

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 point is: what if the tool becomes so great that practically anybody can use it? Anybody could be that "filter" and "be" a great musician.

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

#136

Post by dragontamer »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #120
dragontamer wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ha…

> Build and configure the machine better. It's a stretch to categorize that as a cyborg player. You might as well categorize any chess program as a cyborg player because a human had to program and train it. The key difference between cyborg/centaur/advanced chess and plain old computer chess is whether there is a human in the loop making the move decisions. My argument is that having a human in the loop will result i…

At a minimum: building the opening book alone will require human intervention.

When you build an opening book, you need to pick-and-choose which engines will self play. Will you build an opening book vs Stockfish? Komodo? LeelaZero?

If so, how will you generate these LeelaZero games? You'll have to build a computer (or rent one from AWS) to play these LeelaZero games. What are the time-controls of matches?

Self-play at 40-minutes + 15-second increment means that you'll only create a game every hour or so. Spend 30-days building databases at 40-minute + 15-second increment games, and you'll only reach ~720 games of analysis per month of preparation.

Self-play at 1-minutes + 0-second increment results in a game win/loss every 2-minutes (maximum), giving you 21600 generated opening book positions per month of analysis. But these 21600 games are of lower-quality.

----------

Spend 1-month building an anti-Stockfish database, an anti-LeelaZero database, an anti-Komodo database... and you're now 3-months into preparation and there's still Shredder, Johnny, and all other programs that may arrive at the contest.

Its not exactly as easy as you think it is. There's no algorithm that automatically builds the best opening book (or "counter" opening book) against your opponents. Its a human choice for what the computer will spend the next-3 months self-analyzing and self-playing.

Lets think about how to build anti-LeelaZero seriously. Which of these networks do you download as the LeelaZero representative? https://lczero.org/networks/

You don't have the time to build an anti-opening database for all of those networks.

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

#137

Post by chki »

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…

I think the problem with music is that there is no "objectively good" music composition. It remains entirely subjective and all criteria that are used to differentiate between "bad" and "good" albums are highly subjective. (Maybe something like "originality" might be measurable in some way but even there it gets tricky really fast)

So music generation (similar to poetry) is imo a completely different problem space altogether.

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

#138

Post by mrkstu »

fishnchips wrote: post #113
forinti wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Penguins can outswim even Phelps. The one physical activity at which humans excel is long-distance running.

What about horses?

Humans will lose in short distances but a well conditioned athlete can win in a 20+ mile distance over a horse.

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

#139

Post by Akababa »

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…

That's a really oversimplified view. The truth is beyond a certain point no amount of "theorizing" is enough to overcome the sheer computational power of programs. AlphaZero just took advantage of recent advances in neural networks and GPU hardware to achieve a better tradeoff between hard rules and heuristics than Stockfish. Both of them are probably Pareto efficient in some sense, and barring some insane undiscovered loophole in the rules of chess it's unlikely that any human can come close to beating them.

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

#140

Post by red75prime »

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #131
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…

I don’t think so. AI is a tool. It doesn’t make any sense to say “a screwdriver can now screw things in better than a person” anymore than saying an “AI can diagnose better than any doctor”. The doctors use AI just like a mechanic uses a screw driver.

At some point a person who uses AI doesn't need to be a doctor anymore.
Post reply on HN