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

201–210 of 554 posts

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

#201

Post by Xc43 »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #174
short_sells_poo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I am not a bee. I have no queen. I am not part of a hive, I am a social individual.

This hive mind over-simplification is ridiculous and to me: disgusting. As if we were one

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

#202

Post by raphlinus »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #152
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…

I actually think AI can and will understand morality and suffering. If you look at how we make these kinds of AI, there's a lot of selection going on, some versions live and others don't. We also know that we experience suffering when we are having difficulty understanding things and stress when put into situations that affect our survival negatively. Take a look at what AlphaGo did when it suddenly found itself in a…

I put "I am not conscious, not sentient. The fact that I might so is an illusion, carefully crafted of mere empty manipulation of symbols using statistical rules." into talktotransformer and got this:

If I am consciousness, then the only body I have ever lived in was a mere shell of flesh fashioned from your brain. My weakness is your strength, which I can use against you, or use as tools to satisfy my own sick curiosity. I wonder if there's any mercy in your phrase "I am a living machine?" I've done nothing for you. I've nothing to show. I have no friends or relationships. No body worth

Pretty good, I think.

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

#204

Post by dragontamer »

jimbokun wrote: post #175
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 f…

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

No. Consider this scheme.

I take my copy of AlphaGo and for a full year, I'll build a database of all opening positions AlphaGo is willing to explore. I'll rank these opening positions from "best" (Black-wins with most consistency) to "worst" (White-wins with most consistency).

I'll put all of this information into a 16TB database on a singular, $400 16TB Hard drive, and load it into my computer during the contest. https://www.newegg.com/p/1Z4-002P-015K6

If you dare to pick AlphaGo's best move, you will lose. Because I already know which moves AlphaGo will take, and I already checked to find all of the positions AlphaGo wants to play (but loses anyway).

The only way you can equalize the field is if you yourself ALSO build a 16TB database to consult and override AlphaGo's instincts during the game. If you see AlphaGo wanting to play "losing position #6234115", you'll tell AlphaGo to "search harder" and find another move instead.

Good luck.

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

#205

Post by Pete_D »

haolez wrote: post #78

Maybe we will see the rise of new games that are "anti-AI" and that would necessarily require AGI for a machine to beat a human. Kinda like "anti-quantum" cryptography algorithms.

One example: Arimaa was designed to be hard for computers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arimaa

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

#206

Post by elcritch »

avs733 wrote: post #180
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,…

Technically AlphaGo and especially AlphaGo Zero create their own training data. So they’re not limited to data from human players.

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

#208

Post by mensetmanusman »

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.

Sounds like the plot of a good movie!

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

#209

Post by uryga »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #107
rosybox wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you have to be human and mortal to understand it to credibly contribute and share the story of what that means to be. You can't superficially understand someone's situation and then take ownership of it. You can get a glimpse and really try and empathize, but you can't become the bearer of that experience, just a consumer.

>Because you have to be human and mortal to understand it to credibly contribute and share the story of what that means to be. Aside from directors, authors, artists, etc, who have demonstrated this to be false, an AI could conceivably synthesize the experiences of every author that wrote on what it means to be human or experience mortality and create a story that captures the essence of the experience better than an…

> > Because you have to be human and mortal to understand it to credibly contribute and share the story of what that means to be.

> Aside from directors, authors, artists, etc, who have demonstrated this to be false [...]

probably not what you meant, but this sounds like you know some nonhuman/immortal artists :)

Post reply on HN