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

391–400 of 554 posts

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

#391

Post by unexaminedlife »

It's as if his only incentive for doing what he did was to be the best and not truly a love for the thing he was doing.

Or maybe he's frustrated because he can't even begin to understand the strategies employed by the AI players. Obviously no one else on this planet is going to be able to teach him.

The scary thing is that if all of the best humans at what they do start deciding to stop doing it because computers are better than them, let's hope we manage to get AI far enough that it can simply prop our civilization up for future generations. Or at that point do we throw up our hands and say maybe our species isn't worth keeping around.

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

#392

Post by bamboozled »

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…

I think what makes people actually worried about an AGI taking over is the possibility that we end up being treated like shit by a more intelligent being. Just how we use lab rats to perform experiments with and factory farm.

People are afraid of themselves I believe. It’s not really about “job loss”.

I’m not sure if most people realise AI means pretty specific models built to solve rather specific problems. They think SkyNet.

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

#393

Post by needToCrust »

bhouston wrote: post #389
breatheoften wrote: post #374

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 perfor…

And this will happen to all of humanness in time. Everything we think is unique about us, and our endeavours, will be reduced to optimization and learning algorithms eventually. The main issue in determining man or machine in each situation eventually will be which has the lower TOC.

Hmm, I don’t think an ai could use optimization and learning algorithms to “learn” to DM D&D. For that, the ai would have to simply be an i.

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

#394

Post by oxplot »

I personally lost interest in playing games that computers can play better than me or could in near future (I used to play video games and chess quite a bit). These days, I enjoy playing games that involve human interaction and improvisation, more than logical thinking and strategy. Every time I find myself in presence of a game like Cluedo, I can't shake off the thought that I could write a program in one hour to beat everyone, and so why am I wasting my time!

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

#395

Post by 13415 »

Symmetry wrote: post #354
p1necone wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the normal meaning of solved in regards to game theory.

But it is what "solved" means in deep learning. Common terms very often acquire different technical meanings in different fields. Or even technical terms! Whether a single hydrogen atom is a "molecule" depends on whether you're talking to a physicist or a chemist. And "functor" means something very different in Java programming patterns than it does in math.

I have to concur with the other poster here. You're not using the term in the usual way. Traditionally a game is called solved when its search space has been searched exhaustively or there is some other analytic solution that allows you to determine who wins and who looses in every constellation. Tic-tac-toe is solved, for instance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game

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

#396

Post by bhouston »

needToCrust wrote: post #393
bhouston wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this will happen to all of humanness in time. Everything we think is unique about us, and our endeavours, will be reduced to optimization and learning algorithms eventually. The main issue in determining man or machine in each situation eventually will be which has the lower TOC.

Hmm, I don’t think an ai could use optimization and learning algorithms to “learn” to DM D&D. For that, the ai would have to simply be an i.

Eventually it can do your example of unique human intelligence whatever that example is.

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

#397

Post by conistonwater »

dragontamer wrote: post #336
patcon wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fwiw, I'm with you. Excuse the gratuitous war analogy, but I suspect the approach of OP is akin to talking about which first 8 steps to take (north-east, SW, S) when going into battle -- it's such a small scope of the whole event that it's pointless, and talking about those first steps makes one seem naive to the actual holistic task

For the near term future, LeelaZero is the best public engine at computer Go. This means if you enter a hypothetical "Cyborg" Go competition (computer-assistance allowed), the majority of newbies will simply be playing LeelaZero #1 plays over and over again. You don't need to build an exhaustive opening book covering all possible moves. You only need to pick say, the top 5 moves LeelaZero ever considers. If you spend…

I think you're missing btilly's point, which is quite valid. Bear in mind that 17-ply is absolutely nothing in go.

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

#398

Post by asfarley »

pvg wrote: post #311
CamperBob2 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, just ahead of its time. It will be our grandchildrens' flame war. No need to fight it here and now.

No, it's not anything for grandchildren. Right here, today, someone tried to draw some moral parallel between racism and someone else's views on the possible limitations of AI. That is totally effed up. It's totally effed up whether or not the original thing about AI is right or wrong.

Why is it wrong to draw that parallel?

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

#399

Post by falcrist »

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.

Humans can and are absorbing some of what the machine has demonstrated.

I think Kasparov has it right when he says that the best player isn't a human or a machine, but a human using a machine as a tool. The machine can help the player optimize and reduce mistakes, but machines don't yet know how to ask questions and explore in the same way. Maybe they never will.

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

#400

Post by roomey »

bhouston wrote: post #389
breatheoften wrote: post #374

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 perfor…

And this will happen to all of humanness in time. Everything we think is unique about us, and our endeavours, will be reduced to optimization and learning algorithms eventually. The main issue in determining man or machine in each situation eventually will be which has the lower TOC.

Except Calvinball of course
Post reply on HN