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

171–180 of 554 posts

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

#171

Post by kylek »

trasneoir wrote: post #71
kylek wrote: post #8

That's unfortunate. I wonder if we'll need a new term for this kind of "chilling effect". What else won't people explore or further themselves in due to the presence AI?

It seems clear that bots will dominate humans in many/most competitive closed-world games over the next couple of years: They are already unbeatable in perfect-information games like Chess and Go. They could crush human motor racers tomorrow. They will be unbeatable in games with limited information (Dota/Starcraft) within months. The next frontier is donkey-space games like rps, poker and day-trading ( https://unive…

What I really meant was...well..things other than gaming (come on HN, think big). Why make music if AI started making the "best" music?

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

#172

Post by gsempe »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #169

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, aga…

That’s exactly why the master shouldn’t have quit.

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

#173

Post by aurelianito »

scarmig wrote: post #154
Akababa wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 undiscover…

Question: if we discovered a way for white to always force a win, would humans be able to use that to beat black AIs consistently?

This has been already found for checkers, but players around the world still play it. If the way is too complicated then we cannot apply it unaided.

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

#174

Post by r3trohack3r »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #84
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…

> Come on, none of us are really "human" anymore since the advent of cell phones. I really like the way you put it. In isolation, humans today have essentially the same natural mental capacity we had 2000 years ago, but we've become part of a much bigger computer. A human brain 2000 years ago was a very isolated entity. Even in centers of learning in the classical era, the amount of knowledge one could tap into was v…

I've woven this sentiment into my philosophy.

I feel computers (and the networks between them) are a natural evolution of our hive mind. When we first started taking spoken language and committing it to writing, we created a hive mind that extended beyond a generation. Prior to that point, everything was passed on through observation of other humans (observing behavior, observing speech, etc.). This meant everything had to pass through, and be mediated by, a human brain. Once we committed that to writing, we had a direct line back to the original brain that created the content unencumbered by the mushy grey bits that have consumed and regurgitated it since.

I feel we are still iterating on that. Cataloging our collective minds and building ever low latency systems to navigate those catalogues. Computers are just an extension that improved our ability to catalogue and retrieve the contents of each other's brains in an incredibly low latency way.

We are part of a hive mind. Our industry is actively building the load bearing infrastructure that supports our hive mind.

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

#175

Post by jimbokun »

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…

> Come on, none of us are really "human" anymore since the advent of cell phones. We all use our cyborg-capabilities to search the internet and fact-check ourselves every day. Programmers use stack-overflow to teach themselves programming and remember obscure details (using our cyborg capabilities to tag, search, and sift through information ever faster and faster).

Sure and any of us could jump on a motorcycle and fly past Usain Bolt in the 100m, but that kind of misses the whole point of the competition.

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

Won't the winner be the one who just takes AlphaGo's recommended move every time without changing anything?

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

#176

Post by dragontamer »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #168
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.

> (2) it may be that the world champion human/computer team is the one that defers 100% to the computer, which seems uninteresting.

AlphaZero doesn't have any randomness built into it, does it? Which means I can build preparation against the lines of play AlphaZero would want to go down.

I think you're underestimating the human, and also overestimating Google's laboratory experiment here. No one has really played "Cyborg Go" yet.

The first casualty of "Cyborg Go" will be AlphaGo in its current form: its clearly inadequate for AlphaGo to play deterministic. Random play MUST be incorporated, lest opponent's preparation sends it down the wrong path.

If I know that AlphaGo plays slightly worse on 3-4 opening (or 4-4opening, or maybe even the 10-10-opening), then that's what I'll do. Give me a copy of AlphaGo and I'll be able to find a weakness somewhere.

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

#177

Post by Bostonian »

Computers do not play chess with humans without breaking the rules of tournament play. When you play in a chess tournament, you are not allowed to look up the opening of your game, and you are not allowed to look up the best play for simple endgames. Chess software has opening and endgame databases built in. In a chess tournament, you cannot move pieces during analysis. That is what computers do. I understand that humans do study openings and endgames and analyze by moving around pieces in their heads.

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

#178

Post by arcticfox »

chki wrote: post #146
Quarrelsome wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>So there was a window between the 90's and today where a human player could have discarded the traditional measuring sticks of "trade-value" and beaten DeepBlue. I have to disagree: even after the discoveries by Alpha Zero, the best chess players are not able to beat Stockfish. Stockfish is just too good at Brute forcing long tactical advantages. Playing really well positionally doesn't matter a lot if your opponent…

They said Deep Blue, not Stockfish. Stockfish is vastly stronger.

I'm not sure how big the window was, if it existed, but it seems like it might have. Kasparov and Deep Blue themselves were fairly equally matched, it doesn't seem impossible that Kasparov + AI-aided theories would have a window of advantage over the Deep Blue -> Stockfish evolution.

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

#179

Post by red75prime »

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.

> and probably never will

Do you mean that human intelligence is not general enough to recreate functions of existing physical structure that implements general intelligence?

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

#180

Post by avs733 »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #169

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, aga…

Another way to look at your metaphor is that research on exercise physiology has shown the enormous importance of rest and proper nutrition during training. Prior to cars, getting from place to place and access to optimal nutrition were both mediated by transport over long distances.

AI is the future of Go because it enables those new perspectives and new processes by which human players can learn. AI is smart-dumb, looking for patterns beyond the human capacity, but limited by the data on existing human players that has been provided to them.

Strava hasn't made running races pointless. I can compare my runs to others but that is a very different metric then beating them in a head to head race.

Post reply on HN