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

271–280 of 554 posts

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

#271

Post by mastax »

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…

> 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.

An accurate metaphor would be a person on a motorcycle competing against another person on a motorcycle.

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

#272

Post by Enginerrrd »

clmul wrote: post #163
Enginerrrd wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

In that context, it would probably have to be those with widest appeal, which comes with it's own criticisms.

But, in almost any particular human artistic sub-niche with it's own definition of "best", the same principle will hold, with compensation and skill level being well correlated. It's also typically not even close to linearly correlated either, most of the compensation lies at the far tail of "best".

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

#273

Post by dragontamer »

btilly wrote: post #260
dragontamer wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 co…

> Instead put a tiny fraction of the computing power necessary to build this book into self-training.

Do you believe that AlphaZero could continue to improve dramatically with another 6-months of training? Or if it can improve at another 6-months after that? At some point, the network will reach a local maximum, and it will be unable to improve beyond that.

Characterizing AlphaZero's moves through big-data analysis is innately going to become useful as self-training plateaus. Even Google wasn't able to get more than a few months of training in before the plateau.

At which point, it will be more reasonable to characterize the weaknesses of the network and build an opening book. Avoid the positions that the network was unable to learn about. Etc. etc.

Opening books, at a minimum, would grossly improve AlphaZero's play at competitive levels. Anyone with an opening book of AlphaZero's mistakes will be able to push AlphaZero into a mistaken position.

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

#274

Post by p1necone »

dragontamer wrote: post #98
lern_too_spel wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you can build opening book databases to exploit their patterns. And then program the computer to use that opening book directly. Now what is your cyborg player going to do? After you patch all these easy rules, you will have to discover harder rules, and the computer can discover them faster than you can.

> 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…

This whole train of thought is silly. People still want to play chess, the existence of computers that are better than them is irrelevant. Nobody is going to pivot from playing chess to this, they're just going to play chess, because nothing is stopping them.

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

#275

Post by neohaven »

patmcc wrote: post #130
neohaven wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

I'm always going to enjoy a person coming and showing a bit of themselves through their music.

That's not something we can really lose without losing something that connects us. People want a story. That has sold since the beginning of time, and it will keep selling. People will keep being moved to music, giving money to the artists that inspire them, and that requires connection. Maybe an AI/human team would make some really incredible stuff, and I'd be willing to pay for it if it makes me feel something. I think the human touch of "selection" will never truly leave, even if only in the listener's mind...

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

#276

Post by CydeWeys »

dragontamer wrote: post #193
CydeWeys wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AlphaZero uses Monte Carlo Tree Search. It definitely has randomness built in. I'm with the other guy; I don't see how a person could make the AI play any better.

> AlphaZero uses Monte Carlo Tree Search. It definitely has randomness built in. That's not what MCTS means. MCTS refers to the bandit problem which formulated the search parameters. MCTS always chooses the "most interesting" path to explore. (Where "most interesting" is the path that balances explore-and-exploit hyper-parameters). AlphaZero improved upon MCTS by deferring to the neural net as the hyper-parameter. Bu…

Even if it is 100% deterministic (which I'm not convinced of, especially seeing as how distributed and thus ordering-dependent it is), if it's the best in the world, how does that help you compete against it? In order to take advantage of its determinism you'd need to be better than it, and nothing else is.

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

#277

Post by tempsolution »

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…

Sorry, but this doesn't make much sense. Playing Chess and Go to start with is already a kindof questionable use of anyone's time. But if you know that a computer will demolish even the worlds best players, transforms this into a hobby. There is literally no point in spending 20 years frantically training a useless skill that every computer can do better.

Mankind should focus on skills that computers can't yet compete at. Hopefully the point in time will be far off where computers will beat humans at everything, but likewise, once they do, there is no reason for the human race to continue to exist.

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

#278

Post by bagacrap »

blondie9x wrote: post #252

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?

a man also can't beat a car in a race, so what's the point of athletics?

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

#280

Post by p1necone »

pjscott wrote: post #262
shkkmo wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Solved", in this case, means "computers can play the game at levels no human can beat."

That's not the normal meaning of solved in regards to game theory.
Post reply on HN