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

401–410 of 554 posts

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

#401

Post by macinjosh »

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.

Perhaps the one 'special thing' piece humanness is that we can and tend to automate ourselves. (i.e. we're lazy) :)

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

#402

Post by pepve »

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.

Re: "all of humanness"

https://xkcd.com/1875/

(If you don't want to click the link, there's a joke there that machines may have a hard time "being to cool to care about stuff.")

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

#403

Post by fooxbar »

oxplot wrote: post #394

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 be…

Are there any games computers can't beat us at? Last I heard OpenAI destroyed professional Dota players.

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

#404

Post by mlurp »

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…

Is this true? From what I've read about Alpha Zero/etc, in both Go and chess, it's going interesting move sequences that people hadn't considered viable before. That certainly seems like an interesting thing to learn.

Also, sure, you can dismiss it all as statistics. But how sure are you that what's happening with humans isn't in some form? I'd also say that MCTS is something people kind of do too in games: look a few moves deep and try to judge the value of that position, which is definitely more interesting than simple RL/bookkeeping/stats.

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

#405

Post by pepve »

bhouston wrote: post #396
needToCrust wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Another example of unique human intelligence: drown in existential dread.

I can do that, you can do that, but will a computer be able to do it?

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

#406

Post by maximente »

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…

so what, you do mechanical turk tasks in your free time?

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

#407

Post by swframe2 »

Check out MuZero. It learns an embedding of the game's state space potentially allowing AlphaGo like dominance in more ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We20YSAJZSE

https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.08265

(Actually, ML is still not very good at causal reasoning so we have sometime. I'm more excited and worried about crispr at this point; what happens when we can make people genetically super human)

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

#408

Post by y_tho »

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.

That's like when the whole class fails a test, but the prof. grades on a curve. Someone gets an A, but not really. edit: some grammar.

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

#409

Post by [deleted] »

theemathas wrote: post #378
visarga wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

[deleted]

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

#410

Post by needToCrust »

bhouston wrote: post #396
needToCrust wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ai won’t, but a machine with true intelligence will. That was the point of talking about ai needing to be i.
Post reply on HN