I am so tired of AI-bullying. No-one should be degraded or spoken badly about because some AI wins in some task. Please treat Lee with respect as he is a pillar in human intelligence. We in denmark whish you all the best Lee. I hope you will continue with your explorations in this fine game. Kindest regards from Denmark
Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
421–430 of 554 posts
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#422I 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…
whats being lost here I think idk is the fact that the robot lost once because lee de-dol exploited a bug in alpha go. lee seems to play it down as “just a bug” but it seems like that might be a pretty good strategy.
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever seen a real hive bro? I see you consider yourself as part of one, but do you even realize the implications or just mindlessly accept it? I am not and will never a bee. This analogy is demonstration of laziness.
Everyone is a bee to an extent, unless they live as a hermit. We’re all part of a larger system and have certain things to do (work, pay taxes, and so on). With the advent of the internet, behavior will continue to grow more hive-like due to basically instantaneous communication. Is that so bad?
Wouldn’t ants bee a better metaphor? The thing is though that apes aren’t insects, and thus their social arrangements are a bit different, with individuality being more prominent among The large brain mammals.
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#424[deleted]
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#425I 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…
I’m now curios, can a human design a game that a computer can not beat a human at.
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#426I also am hesitant to assume AI is the primary reason without a clear statement to that effect.
Others mentioned the pay dispute and previous retirement. One reason I didn’t see mentioned is that since 2016, his play is not at the same level it was. From 2000-2016 he was always among the very best, and for most of a decade he was the best. No player had a better run over those years. Now, he’s still good, and could maintain a long career, but there are many players who are unmistakably stronger, and he’s at the age where a comeback is not super likely.
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#427I 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.
While it may be true, this is, of course, conjecture. Certainly many skills that seemed "uniquely human" have turned out not to be. That does not mean that all such abilities will be amenable to replacement by, as you say, "optimization and learning algorithms." Machine authoring of great art, a problem which may be at least as hard to solve as Artificial General Intelligence, does not seem to be on the horizon any time soon, for example.
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#428Earlier 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.
Any substandard statistical model fitted to by a simple computer program is superior to what an unaided human could achieve with pen and paper, but few of them can claim to practically "solve" the problem because they are better than crude fit heuristics proposed by humans who are not good calculating machines.
An algorithm can't claim to have "solved" Go, when future versions of the algorithm are expected to achieve vastly superior results, never mind any formal mathematical proof of optimality. What it has demonstrated is that humans aren't very good at Go. Given that Go involves estimating Nash equilibrium responses in a perfect information game with a finite, knowable but extremely large range of possible outcomes, it's perhaps not surprising that Go is the sort of problem that humans are not very good at trying to solve and that computers can incrementally improve on our attempted solutions. Perhaps the more interesting finding from AlphaGoZero is that humans were so bad at Go that not training on human games and theory actually improved performance.
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#429I've spent so many years playing and hearing about how Go will not be solved in our lifetime that the day AlphaGo won 4/5 games v Lee Sedol marked my personal timeline into what came before and after. I walked around all day in a daze watching people as they go about their daily lives as if nothing had happened. I've heard it said that man landing on the moon was like that for them, but I didn't understand as it was…
I have an opposite view: it's not that shocking that AI has advanced a lot. It's a lot more shocking to learn that humans aren't as great as we hope to be. Also, our prediction sucks. I mean, who said that go is such a difficult problem that it would take a lifetime to solve? Sounds like intellectual arrogance to me. Sure, the problem space is huge, but it's well-defined and homogeneous. There was a time that recitin…
> On the other hand, things like self-driving will remain unsolvable because the problem is fundamentally ill-defined; we don't even know what is a good driving.
Humans arrive safe and unhurt (as much as possible, especially while human drivers remain on the road) at their destination with minimal violation of the locality's established rules of the road. No?
(Though now that I've written what amounts to a utility function, I fear what sort of paperclips may come out of it.)
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So you're defining "AI" to be anything that we can currently program a computer to do, and "I" to be anything we can't yet? That doesn't seem like a useful distinction to me. Unless you're using "I" to mean general (artificial) intelligence, in which case you should probably use the more well-known term.