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

431–440 of 554 posts

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

#431

Post by sl1ck731 »

filoleg wrote: post #334
sl1ck731 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A pattern implies that it can "infer" something in the future. If we oversimplify and compile a list of traits about "the world" as it was in the past that allowed a new genre or artist to flourish, AI could predict that in the future. It isn't like the paradigm shifts just happen in a vacuum. Granted there are probably millions of little things that lead to this, stuff like the shared experiences of an entire genera…

A lot of those things are completely random and non-predictable, to be honest, no one can predict which paradigm will win and take over for the next decade. Especially since when a game-changing paradigm comes, it is usually not received well universally at all, until the moment it takes over the public conscious completely, and then the switch is flipped. If you feed an AI a bunch of modern car designs and ask it to…

It doesn't have to be like Kanye's album at that point in time to be a paradigm shift, though. If 1 artist didn't get big or some genre blow up then it would have just been filled by an infinite amount of others that we never heard. Even considering a single artist hitting it big there are how many that are never heard of? An AI could produce an equal number of artists and only has to win once every month/year/etc. I think this is similar to the million monkeys at a typewriter thing.

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

#432

Post by smallnamespace »

pepve wrote: post #405
bhouston wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I mean, you joke, but existential dread might be an adaptive response to a hostile environment.

...a situation we might want to simulate for training purposes

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

#433

Post by salomaki »

jv22222 wrote: post #425
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…

I’m now curios, can a human design a game that a computer can not beat a human at.

The Turing Test game? (For now at least)

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

#434

Post by asib »

jv22222 wrote: post #425
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…

I’m now curios, can a human design a game that a computer can not beat a human at.

This reduces down to the question of whether it's possible to simulate a brain (or an equivalent formulation, such as is consciousness somehow extraphysical). I believe I'm right in saying current consensus says that this is possible.

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

#435

Post by Madmallard »

mlurp wrote: post #404
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 fe…

The sequences are viable because alpha go assessed state much deeper than humans do. Doesn't mean humans will be able to utilize them correctly.

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

#437

Post by asib »

pepve wrote: post #405
bhouston wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I've written this in another comment but I'll repeat here. What you're asking really boils down to a combination of whether a human brain can be simulated and whether human intelligence is merely due to the physical brain (or do you believe in the existence of some intangible consciousness that cannot be replicated by a machine). Assume you believe both to be true, then your simulated brain is surely able to drown in existential dread because it's capable of no more and no less than the human one.

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

#438

Post by Breviloquist »

Before winning against the best people meant you were at the leading edge of Go and were on the fore-front of discovering whatever are its mysteries.

Now, you are at best a subaltern to software in this pursuit. In time you might not even been involved beyond receiving what the machine hands down to you. You can still learn something, but you'll be reading National Geographic rather than personally exploring unchartered territory.

Some people need the meaning of the larger quest. Others are just happy to play Go and enjoy learning what the guide book can teach them.

Both perspectives make sense to me.

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

#439

Post by andrepd »

jv22222 wrote: post #425
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…

I’m now curios, can a human design a game that a computer can not beat a human at.

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

Also, relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1002/

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

#440

Post by tfha »

Madmallard wrote: post #435
mlurp wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fe…

The sequences are viable because alpha go assessed state much deeper than humans do. Doesn't mean humans will be able to utilize them correctly.

Nah at least in chess all the grandmasters lean heavily on the chess engines, including studying top games between the best AI
Post reply on HN