Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players • Hacker News Board

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

#371

Post by short_sells_poo » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 10:18 PM UTC

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

A hive mind is not something exclusive to bees or having a queen. As a matter of fact, a hive mind almost by definition cannot be concentrated to a single individual like a queen, so I'm not sure why you are so anchored to disputing that your are a bee?

If we define hive mind as a collective consciousness, then for sure one can argue that such a thing seems to be arising in human society. As a matter of fact in modern parlance it is fine to call a strongly unifying force, set of norms, school of thought or strong social bonds a hive mind. The hive mind can still be constructed of individuals capable of agency and independent action. It does not replace the minds of it's constituents, rather it can be thought of as an emergent property of many individual agents forming a deeply connected collective.

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

#372

Post by 2bitencryption » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 10:18 PM UTC

hindsightRegret wrote: post #254

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.

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.

It all hinges on your definition of "solved".

"Solved" in the AI/game theory has a very strict definition. It indicates that you have formally proven that one of the players can guarantee an outcome from the very beginning of the game.

The less-strict definition being thrown around here in the comments is more like "This AI can always beat this human because it is much stronger."

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

#373

Post by z3phyr » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 10:19 PM UTC

nullc wrote: post #366

karmakaze wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps also true, most of the energy was spent during training.

Well the energy spent creating you across the last billion years was also significant!

Then the energy spent creating the machine is always higher

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

#374

Post by breatheoften » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 10:21 PM UTC

I sympathize.

It used to be that you might be able to believe that there is some kind of art behind go, some sort of abstract beauty to it, and that the pursuit of this beauty is the path to being good at go ...

But the defeat of the tactics born from this mindset by MCTS at least for now lay bare the fact that the path to being good at go is actually to probabilistically sample the phase space of the game and perform impossibly mindless statistics on the game outcome an enormous number of times ...

To top it off — there is almost nothing “about go” to learn from watching alpha go play ... I imagine that attempting to analyze alpha go’s victories would produce an unending sequence of the feeling of never gaining any new insight “into go”.

The analysis of go is now about optimizing algorithms — which _is_ interesting — but I don’t think it’s interesting for the same reasons that someone might’ve been passionate about go in the past ...

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

#375

Post by short_sells_poo » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 10:23 PM UTC

Xc43 wrote: post #259

shkkmo wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I don't understand how that has any bearing on whether human society can form hive minds or hive mind like entities.

> 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.

No that is absolutely not what a hive mind is. A hive mind is a collective consciousness. That's it. It says nothing about the objectives or agency of it's parts.

> 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.

You seem to be laboring under the apprehension that a hive mind supplants the consciousness of it's parts. That may be the case for certain hive minds, but it is not a necessary feature. A hive mind can just be an emergent property of individual minds that are strongly connected but still retain agency.

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

#376

Post by dragontamer » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 10:24 PM UTC

codebje wrote: post #302

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…

MCTS is a random algorithm, and AlphaGo is no exception. The AI selects a move. What state is the board in now? It doesn't know, because the opponent also selected a move. MCTS models this with a probability distribution of the states, and samples from this distribution repeatedly to build an estimate of the effectiveness of each move it could make. But what's the probability of each move made by the opponent? And af…

Be it randomized algorithm or not, LeelaZero seems to play deterministically.

If given White in chess, LeelaZero plays 1. e4. Each time, every time. Guess what that means?

If you're building an opening chess database vs LeelaZero (or at least, this version of LeelaZero: https://lichess.org/@/LeelaZero-UK), you only have to worry about 1. e4 openings.

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

#377

Post by tooop » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 10:26 PM UTC

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #229

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…

I'm actually not sure if we have motorcycles that can accelerate faster than usain bolt. I know the blue fin tuna has more acceleration than any vehicle ever devised by humankind.

A top sprint bicyclist can beat Usain Bolt in 100m. A modern or even a few not so modern liter bikes would have no problem in beating Bolt either.

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

#378

Post by theemathas » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 10:27 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #160

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…

> AlphaGo can play go but it cannot appreciate the beauty of the game On the contrary, appreciating the game is the core of what AlphaGo does. In order to search the tree of moves it learns how to play (expand search) and how to evaluate (cut off branches of search). I believe it might appreciate the game on a deeper level than humans, in its own unique way. Of course it can't appreciate the social aspect of the game…

What does it mean for humans to appreciate the beauty of the game anyway? It's when humans find certain moves and games pleasurable?

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

#379

Post by xiaodai » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 10:28 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #317

btilly wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The analogy is a very appropriate one. If the OP spent a month learning Go, I am sure that it would make sense to him as well. Work through a series like https://senseis.xmp.net/?LearnToPlayGoSeries while playing Go regularly against a variety of opponents. Before book 3 it should be obvious.

I'll have you know that I'm a 15 Kyu Go player. I'm not an expert by any means, but I'm well past "spend one month" learning the game.

15kyu? One can easily reach that strength after 1 week. Some ppl become pro age 9

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

#380

Post by stormbrew » Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 10:28 PM UTC

sukilot wrote: post #236

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…

Sprinting is a weird sport. I think it exists because running is a natural human skill that many people care about beyond running contests , because they can't thrive with complete dependence on machines for locomotion. In most people's lives, there are times where the ability to run actually matters. But the ability to play Go never matters outside of playing Go, and we know who is the best at playing Go.

Ah yes, the ability to use your brain competitively is completely useless in the day to day lives of humans. It's much more important to everyone's day to day life that they can occasionally sprint 30 feet to the bus because they snoozed their alarm one too many times, and that is of course a completely comparable skill to a 100m dash.