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

251–260 of 554 posts

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

#251

Post by pvg »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #181
pvg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not an invalid point at all. The only question is how long it'll take to come to pass. I disagree with the "relatively near future" part, but rest assured, AI rights will eventually be a thing.

'Your argument is as morally repugnant as racist arguments' as a response to 'I don't think machines will ever capture human aesthetics or emotions' is ridiculous, glib and ugly.

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

#252

Post by blondie9x »

This is about human drive and what's the point if the computer will always be better. In a way it makes the game a bit less fun because it somewhat kills the elusiveness of it all and the human aspect of men trying to surpass each others feats. If a man cannot beat a machine at a task where they are to compete directly, what's the point of trying at all if the machine will always be better?

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

#253

Post by warkdarrior »

billfruit wrote: post #65
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 am no expert, but at least in chess, players have developed repertoire of styles intended to specifically beat computers, anti-computer tactics, essentially to try to confuse and mislead the AI, may be some such methods can be developed for go as well.

For now...

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

#254

Post by hindsightRegret »

shkkmo wrote: post #227
karmakaze wrote: post #118

I've spent so many years playing and hearing about how Go will not be solved in our lifetime that the day AlphaGo won 4/5 games v Lee Sedol marked my personal timeline into what came before and after. I walked around all day in a daze watching people as they go about their daily lives as if nothing had happened. I've heard it said that man landing on the moon was like that for them, but I didn't understand as it was…

Go still isn't solved (neither is chess), we just have a machine good at knowing which parts of the search space are worth checking.

I think achieving superiority over humans is practically solving the problem though. Solving chess or go by going through a complete search space seems more like a hardware/computational goal than a practical ml/ai goal.

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

#255

Post by joosters »

sukilot wrote: post #231
AllanHoustonSt wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Won't the winner be the one who just takes AlphaGo's recommended move every time without changing anything? That's only true if AlphaGo never makes a mistake or if AlphaGo will 100% always make the better or equal decision than a human + computer at any given state of the board. I know the former certainly isn't true and I assume the latter isn't true either, but I don't know enough about Go to say for sure.

Like self-driving cars, it's not enough to outsmart AI on one move, it's necessary to outsmart on AI with positive expected value over all the moves you are confident enough to weight in on.

Self-driving cars is a terrible comparison, especially since the state of the art right now is that the best human drivers far outpace the best AI driving, in both skills and flexibility.

Plus, you only have to outsmart the car AI once to 'win' - e.g. just override one 'drive into the highway barrier' or 'run over that pedestrian' AI mistake.

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

#256

Post by namirez »

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. I guarantee you that a more beautiful and perfect game will result.

Probably for a few years. Very soon the input from the human agents will be indistinguishable from the noise in the AlphaGo algorithms.

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

#257

Post by jcims »

Xc43 wrote: post #201
r3trohack3r wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>social individual

There’s your hive

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

#258

Post by sukilot »

arcticfox wrote: post #186
scarmig wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It feels kind of surprising that this doesn't exist (yet). There are only a handful of reasonable moves per turn, and given the unbelievable amounts of moves that offline chess engines can process given time and server farms, I'm just surprised that doesn't overwhelm the reasonable branches at some point into forcing a win. Maybe someday.

The size of chess is approximately 10^50

Computers cost about $0.01 / GFlop (10^12 operaions); $1e47 for 10^50 operations.

The world economy is $1e14/yr.

That's 1e33 years to check every chess position, using all of Earth resources.

You'd need to find symmetries to collapse the search spaceby a factor of 10^33

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

#259

Post by Xc43 »

shkkmo wrote: post #216
Xc43 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The existence of a hive mind (or multiple) does not rule out the existence of individuality (not vise versa), it can be an emergent property of multitudinous individualistic interactions. The degree of influence varies depending on person and subject. We all tend to be conformist in some ways and iconoclastic in others. We may not be a hive mind, but we may have one.

Some realities cannot be reduced nor should they be reduced to analogies like "hive". Our social reality is irreductible being the most complex one known.

Hive mind as an emergent property still implies a common thing for which one lives. Or a queen. A peer that is one's reason to live. The closest thing I can see to a hive mind is the army.

We are all different and it is not because a person one talks with does not express a different opinion does it mean he thinks the same.

Would one say that lions have a hive mind?

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

#260

Post by btilly »

dragontamer wrote: post #233
btilly wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment sounds reasonable, but shows that you don't understand the challenge of Go on computers very well. Go does not have openings. It has reasonable choices to make, with an insane branching factor, with few moves making much of a difference by themselves. Therefore your database will only extend a few moves, and all of the positions that it winds up with will still be very close to even. So your database con…

> Go does not have openings. There are 381 opening moves in Go, but really only 96 because of symmetry. 96 (opening moves) x 380 responses x 379 x 378 x 377 == ~2 Trillion positions after 5 ply. These 2-trillion positions will easily fit in a 16TB hard drive for $400. That's 8-bytes per position, so you probably can get there with more symmetries and some compression applied. ---------- You're thinking too much like…

You're thinking too much like a human.

No, you're thinking too much like someone who understands chess but not Go.

Suppose that we built an opening book with a trillion reasonable courses of action on it. Each one analyzed well. As you have discovered, you will only go a few ply into the game. And all of the positions that you will be directed towards will have only a small edge.

Instead put a tiny fraction of the computing power necessary to build this book into self-training. You will get a better internal model and therefore a significantly stronger computer player. (That is how alpha-go was built in the first place.) This option will produce much better results for far less effort, and again leaves no role for a human to do anything useful.

The fact that a memorized opening book is useless has nothing to do with human vs computer vs cyborg. It has to do with the characteristics of the game. In chess, it is useful to memorize openings and both computers and humans do it. In Go it is a waste of energy, and it is a waste for both computers and humans.

Post reply on HN