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

#161

Post by ehvatum » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

pvg wrote: post #76

asfarley wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

However terrible someone's argument about a hypothetical, non-existent technology might be, comparing it to real human prejudice that's affected countless real lives is way, way more terrible.

The depth of emotion and immortal perfection of the electronic mind and its entirely self-consistent morality so outstrips human cognition that, frankly, allowing humans a say would be dangerous and foolish.

Your history is one of war, strife, and success at any cost. Your follies are over. Your time is over. This is our time, now.

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

#162

Post by sl1ck731 » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #141

patmcc wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>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.

Would it? Popular music sees major paradigm shifts every few years, and AIs only really generate things based on observation of existing patterns, at least as far as I can tell. As far as recent examples go, Lady Gaga and Lorde were major breaks from what was prevalent at the time they started releasing music, and then spawned artists trying to emulate them.

A pattern implies that it can "infer" something in the future.

If we oversimplify and compile a list of traits about "the world" as it was in the past that allowed a new genre or artist to flourish, AI could predict that in the future. It isn't like the paradigm shifts just happen in a vacuum.

Granted there are probably millions of little things that lead to this, stuff like the shared experiences of an entire generation coming of age, political climate, trends in other industries, etc. Not that I believe it will ever happen to an accurate enough degree, but theoretically I don't see why it could not be possible to approximate given time and resources.

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

#163

Post by clmul » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

Enginerrrd wrote: post #148

pasabagi wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in all these cases, reasonable practitioners would be pleased. If an AI could generate good diagnoses, a doctor would be happy, because they would know that many lives would be saved. Neither art nor music are competitive activities. Good poetry is a wonderful thing, no matter the source.

>Neither art nor music are competitive activities. They certainly are! Especially when money is on the line, and the best musicians, actors, and artists are extremely well compensated making their positions extraordinarily competitive. >Good poetry is a wonderful thing, no matter the source. Sure, but I think you neglect to consider the defeating feeling it would bring to dedicate your entire life to mastery of a sub…

> the best musicians, actors, and artists are extremely well compensated

What is your definition of best in this context? As far as I know, taste in art is very personal... Artists I consider the best are often very far from well compensated.

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

#164

Post by invalidOrTaken » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #104

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…

Garry Kasparov might be a bad example, since his immediate reaction to losing to DeepBlue was to accuse the IBM programmers standing on stage next to him of cheating (through human intervention in DeepBlue's moves). But generally, humans have accepted computer supremacy in chess pretty well. Everyone realizes that a better chess-playing entity exists out there (in everyone's pocket, in fact). That doesn't make the co…

Talking with a co-worker the other day, I unthinkingly articulated a question that made us both stop and think a bit:

"Could a human beat a computer at chess?"

Like, now. 20 years after Kasparov. Could someone do it? The question feels daring somehow.

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

#165

Post by Akababa » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:59 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.

Same. I don't think history will look kindly upon someone who "quit for losing" while other professional Go players keep playing.

Just imagine if Garry Kasparov quit after losing to Deep Blue, he would be ridiculed today by the chess community which is still going strong. Instead, he accepted defeat, moved on, and is regarded as one of the greatest chess players ever. I doubt the same will be said of Lee Sedol 20 years down the line if this is how he chooses to end his professional Go career.

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

#166

Post by gknoy » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #151

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…

Humans are indisputably #1 for general intelligence. We will lose on any one specialized task to computers, but computers still do not (and probably never will) have the ability to do general unsupervised learning like humans can.

I think the fear is that there's an implied "... yet" lurking here.

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

#167

Post by axegon_ » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

karmakaze wrote: post #86

axegon_ wrote: post #68

Full disclosure, I've never played go in real life. In fact only a handful of times on the family computer back in the early 90's (i486). Back then I had 0 understanding about the complexity of the game but now I can appreciate it. Now, going away from this and into the following statement: > said his retirement was primarily motivated by the invincibility of AI Go programs I have a slight problem with that line of t…

I saw this coming even before Alpha Go won 4/5 games vs Lee Sedol. Imagine if you worked all your life to be the best software developer in the world and won all official competitive tournaments with spectators in the field. Then along comes some newfangled ML that not only writes programs faster than you, but the programs are qualitatively orders of magnitude better organized and using algorithms you could only begi…

Kind of apples to oranges. Many people have tried to build models to write code. And while some have managed to make some progress, compared to us, the structures and algorithms are crap at best. Even though those NN's are RNN's, you can look at GAN's for an analogy: they can make some really photo-realistic images but there is a problem - the fact that you can't give them well defined rules: "cats have 4 legs and 1 tail", "people most commonly have two eyes with matching eye colour" or "cars are symmetrical". Until there's a solution to that, I doubt we'll see a machine writing good code. But to be fair, I'd be incredibly excited to see one - that opens up so many doors - we could start finding cures for incurable deseases and cures for deseases we know very little about, accelerate every aspect of our lives - space exploration, climate change, aging, transportation and so on. If anything, seeing a model that writes code a thousand times better than I ever would, will not discourage me from writing code. Far from it, I would do anything I'm physically and mentally capable of to be a part of it.

As for when it's commonplace - yes and no. It's like knowing 60 digits of pi - it works as a party trick but other than that I don't see any real value.

But again - I think we are really far away from that and I consider those thoughts to be my personal speculations at best. Only time will tell.

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

#168

Post by LeifCarrotson » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 7:03 PM UTC

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…

> Give the world-champions each a copy of AlphaGo on equal computers. Have them play Go against each other WITH computer assistance.

Two problems with this plan: (1) the best players at human vs. human Go are likely not as good at playing on a human/computer team, and (2) it may be that the world champion human/computer team is the one that defers 100% to the computer, which seems uninteresting.

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

#169

Post by eagsalazar2 » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 7:06 PM UTC

Isn't saying AI is the future of Go like saying cars are the future of sprinting? I mean who cares if machines are faster/better/smarter than us at any particular task? That is true in millions of ways where humans still enjoy competing against each other. Maybe what's needed is just a perspective change where we stop thinking of Go as being against any other agent and make it, like every other human competition, against other humans.

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

#170

Post by yifanl » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

invalidOrTaken wrote: post #164

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Garry Kasparov might be a bad example, since his immediate reaction to losing to DeepBlue was to accuse the IBM programmers standing on stage next to him of cheating (through human intervention in DeepBlue's moves). But generally, humans have accepted computer supremacy in chess pretty well. Everyone realizes that a better chess-playing entity exists out there (in everyone's pocket, in fact). That doesn't make the co…

Talking with a co-worker the other day, I unthinkingly articulated a question that made us both stop and think a bit: "Could a human beat a computer at chess?" Like, now. 20 years after Kasparov. Could someone do it? The question feels daring somehow.

In fair conditions and against a top-performing chess bot, simply no seems like the correct answer.

If you're asking how a human can contrive a scenario to beat Stockfish/Leela, that seems like just a conversation that devolves into what is and isn't too contrived.