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

281–290 of 554 posts

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

#281

Post by sukilot »

usushik wrote: post #34

Garry Kasparov had to face a similar situation when defeated at chess by Deep Blue; However in the long run he used it positively to advocate for a hybrid type of game where a human and a machine collaborate in playing against another (human, machine) pair (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess ). As an aside, there are inevitably more and more things for which even the very best are not sufficiently intel…

In Go and modern Chess, computers don't need human help for the game-related part, as long as they have sufficient computing hardware and energy. That's what AlphaZero showed.

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

#282

Post by sukilot »

CalChris wrote: post #142

Magnus Carlsen should give this guy a call. Top chess GMs have been using computers for close to 20 years, particularly in the openings, and that was before AlphaZero. Myself, I never really enjoyed the TCEC games. They're full of disgusting engine lines which make no sense to humans. But AZ has some absolutely beautiful moves. Still, computers are tools. I'm reminded of Richard Hamming, The purpose of computing is i…

Carlsen uses computers to beat humans, not computers.

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

#283

Post by agumonkey »

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…

Got me curious since I never looked at DB specs:

` It was a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP Thin P2SC-based system with 30 nodes, with each node containing a 120 MHz P2SC microprocessor, enhanced with 480 special purpose VLSI chess chips.`

I misread at first thinking it was grossly 30GHz summed but it's only 3.6GHz (I know, gross maths). So yeah the comparison is apt.. a recent SoC can outperform this old behemoth.

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

#284

Post by dragontamer »

CydeWeys wrote: post #276
dragontamer wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

Play AlphaGo against itself. Go rarely has draws (requires Triple-Ko, a very, very rare position).

Almost every game you play with AlphaZero vs AlphaZero will result in a winner-and-loser. You will quickly be able to characterize the positions that AlphaZero loses in.

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

#285

Post by kamkha »

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?

Yes; further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess

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

#286

Post by agumonkey »

sukilot wrote: post #261
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.

This is the performance vs understanding dialectic. A bunch of humans built a machine that is superior at chess, but that machine can't teach humans what it knows.

Reminds me how sometimes geniuses cannot translate the way their mind works to non-geniuses. It's such an implicit talent that it's not even .. "reified" in their upper brain. It all happens in cache.

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

#287

Post by [deleted] »

dragontamer wrote: post #204
jimbokun wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 informatio…

[deleted]

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

#288

Post by agumonkey »

Barrin92 wrote: post #60

I think this is a strange reason to retire and as the article points out it might also simply be due to the legal conflict he is currently in with the KBA. Chess engines have been defeating humans for 20+ years (and are overwhelmingly stronger for a long time), but that hasn't diminished the interest in competitive chess, because the human element of competition and struggle and deep fundamental appreciation for the…

so the future of humans is beauty :)

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

#289

Post by tunesmith »

SchoolboyBlue wrote: post #21
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.

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…

Algorithmic music will never be as universally satisfying as human-created (or human-filtered) music until AI has consciousness/soul, for one reason - music expresses the emotion from the composer.

There's something axiomatic there, if you assume an identical piece of music that was either written by a human or by a computer, then for many listeners it's by definition more satisfying to know it came from a person, because of what it says about the person.

And for those listeners, if a human "composer" is discovered to have lied about it (saying they wrote it when it was actually a computer), then those listeners would reinterpret their views of the music and consider the "composer" a fraud.

And even a programmer of algorithmic music might have emotional intent, but if the musical output is unknown to the programmer, they did not have the emotional impulse to create that music in particular. While it can be appreciated as its own thing, it's a step removed from the music itself, and qualitatively different than human-composed music.

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

#290

Post by inimino »

tempsolution wrote: post #277
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 compet…

> once they do, there is no reason for the human race to continue to exist

What is the reason for the human race to exist today? Please think carefully about your answer.

Post reply on HN