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

#471

Post by balfirevic » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 3:19 AM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #376

codebje wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Nothing.

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

#472

Post by blondie9x » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 3:19 AM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #460

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…

> 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 ... All but the last phrase are still true. Pursuit of Go for beauty is still pursuit of Go for beauty. I will never play any instrument as well as a sequencer. I believe algorithms will make beautiful Jazz improvisations in…

The difference is that this AI agent was built to beat humans. Horses were not built to run faster than humans.

You have to remember the specific comparison and the art that humans tried to partake in to master go.

Humans do not run to beat horses. We never compete. That would be silly.

Cars and humans also do not compete at the 100 meter dash.

If humans and robots compete at 100 meter dash than the olympics will similarly lose its luster.

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

#473

Post by breatheoften » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 3:36 AM UTC

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.

I think alpha zero can self-train to mastery or super-human performance at any two player game with perfect information?

I’d be curious to know if that’s incorrect ...

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

#474

Post by 55555 » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 3:44 AM UTC

blondie9x wrote: post #472

braythwayt wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ... All but the last phrase are still true. Pursuit of Go for beauty is still pursuit of Go for beauty. I will never play any instrument as well as a sequencer. I believe algorithms will make beautiful Jazz improvisations in…

The difference is that this AI agent was built to beat humans. Horses were not built to run faster than humans. You have to remember the specific comparison and the art that humans tried to partake in to master go. Humans do not run to beat horses. We never compete. That would be silly. Cars and humans also do not compete at the 100 meter dash. If humans and robots compete at 100 meter dash than the olympics will sim…

> Humans do not run to beat horses. We never compete. That would be silly

I hate to be that guy, but:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon

It is very silly indeed.

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

#475

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 3:58 AM UTC

55555 wrote: post #474

blondie9x wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that this AI agent was built to beat humans. Horses were not built to run faster than humans. You have to remember the specific comparison and the art that humans tried to partake in to master go. Humans do not run to beat horses. We never compete. That would be silly. Cars and humans also do not compete at the 100 meter dash. If humans and robots compete at 100 meter dash than the olympics will sim…

> Humans do not run to beat horses. We never compete. That would be silly I hate to be that guy, but: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon It is very silly indeed.

[deleted]

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

#476

Post by cmonnow » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 4:08 AM UTC

blondie9x wrote: post #472

braythwayt wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ... All but the last phrase are still true. Pursuit of Go for beauty is still pursuit of Go for beauty. I will never play any instrument as well as a sequencer. I believe algorithms will make beautiful Jazz improvisations in…

The difference is that this AI agent was built to beat humans. Horses were not built to run faster than humans. You have to remember the specific comparison and the art that humans tried to partake in to master go. Humans do not run to beat horses. We never compete. That would be silly. Cars and humans also do not compete at the 100 meter dash. If humans and robots compete at 100 meter dash than the olympics will sim…

'AI' is not an adversary. It is simply a tool created by hundreds of humans coming together.

It's like watching 1-v-100 boxing match. Of course the 100 are going to win.

Enjoyable sport has always been about ~similarly matched opponents. When we have DeepMind AI Go vs. MindDeep AI Go, that's when things get interesting.

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

#477

Post by cmonnow » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 4:09 AM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #460

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…

> 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 ... All but the last phrase are still true. Pursuit of Go for beauty is still pursuit of Go for beauty. I will never play any instrument as well as a sequencer. I believe algorithms will make beautiful Jazz improvisations in…

'AI' is not an adversary. It is simply a tool created by hundreds of humans coming together.

It's like watching 1-v-100 boxing match. Of course the 100 are going to win.

Enjoyable sport has always been about ~similarly matched opponents. When we have DeepMind AI Go vs. MindDeep AI Go, that's when things get interesting.

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

#478

Post by RantyDave » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 4:13 AM UTC

euske wrote: post #411

karmakaze wrote: post #118

I'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…

Self driving is much simpler than playing Go. The hard part is getting the sensors working properly, in all conditions, even when the car is twenty years old and dented.

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

#479

Post by red75prime » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 4:14 AM UTC

C14L wrote: post #52

yters wrote: post #36

I guess the players don't realize how mismatched they are with the AI. AI spends many, many factors of magnitude more compute to achieve the same goal as a human. There is no comparison between man and machine at this point. From a pure efficiency standpoint, humans are vastly superior.

Maybe in chess, instead of measuring time, they should measure kJ spent.

Or maybe they should measure quantity of produced CO2.

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

#480

Post by alanfalcon » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 4:14 AM UTC

csa wrote: post #362

karmakaze wrote: post #118

I'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’m glad I’m not the only one. I was totally floored, and I struggled to explain the significance to non-go players. My respect for AI increased drastically that day, and (honestly) I developed a small amount of fear due to how AlphaGo’s style of play was not understood particularly well (e.g., some of the moves would absolutely be called “slack” if played by a human).

You both speak of the day AlphaGo won 4/5 matches, yet the matches were played over a series of days. Which of those days was the switch flipped, then? For me there was a significance in day three, but it was mitigated somewhat by the (to me) surprise of day/match four.