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

501–510 of 554 posts

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

#501

Post by shkkmo »

TheGallopedHigh wrote: post #499
2bitencryption wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It all hinges on your definition of "solved". "Solved" in the AI/game theory has a very strict definition. It indicates that you have formally proven that one of the players can guarantee an outcome from the very beginning of the game. The less-strict definition being thrown around here in the comments is more like "This AI can always beat this human because it is much stronger."

I think most people discussing this mean the later, less pedantic option. I mean, that’s the spirit of AI. Can we make it think like a human, or even more so. We are the yardstick.

That is a silly mis-use of the term and that is not being pedantic. A problem isn't solved just because you beat the existing solution (i.e. human players). As long as there is the potential for a better solution that can beat your solution there is work to be done.

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

#502

Post by shkkmo »

1123581321 wrote: post #485
13415 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Regardless, we need a term for “computers can play the game at levels no human can beat.”

Well, don't use one that has an existing meaning in that exact context.

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

#503

Post by bwghughes-fth »

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…

Well said !!

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

#504

Post by kkarakk »

kerkeslager wrote: post #487
eyegor wrote: post #51

Am I the only one reading this article with the take away that the ai is not his primary reason for retirement? I understand that the title has its own conclusion but it seems overly sensational to me. > He actually quit the KBA in May 2016 and is now suing the association for the return of his membership fee. > "... [I] have something else to do," he said, asserting his only dream for now is to rest and spend time w…

I've heard many times that people come to Hacker News because the comments are better than the articles. I have to say, I'm just continually puzzled by this. In this thread, yours is the only comment where it appears that the commenter read beyond the first few paragraphs. There are numerous comments by people speaking authoritatively on go and AlphaGo, who have clearly not studied either significantly.

I think it's because few of us truly care that a "go master" exists and him stopping play isn't meaningfully important to rest of us.

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

#505

Post by thedstrat »

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…

I interpreted breathoften’s comment differently. As someone who’s played chess at a very high level, I feel like I understand people who play these games for the art behind it. It’s difficult to describe, but chess for me is beautiful because to win you must be patient, careful, understand what is and isn’t important, etc. playing chess is like learning virtues. An algorithm playing chess doesn’t care about any of that. I wonder if it’s similar to the difference between meditation and acid. One gives you time to understand and the other just gets you there without explanation.

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

#506

Post by jointpdf »

1123581321 wrote: post #485
13415 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Regardless, we need a term for “computers can play the game at levels no human can beat.”

Superhuman

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

#507

Post by gdy »

205guy wrote: post #361
r3trohack3r wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've woven this sentiment into my philosophy. I feel computers (and the networks between them) are a natural evolution of our hive mind. When we first started taking spoken language and committing it to writing, we created a hive mind that extended beyond a generation. Prior to that point, everything was passed on through observation of other humans (observing behavior, observing speech, etc.). This meant everything…

I agree that this is an elegant lens with which to view the world, and I love writing and computers and all that. But I don't think that oral histories are necessarily worse in both content and process. From my understanding, indigenous Australians and Polynesians had rich oral histories and cultures. Also oral culture may be more adaptable than a musty written document that never changes and must be followed. The hu…

"oral histories are necessarily worse in both content and process"

"doesn't mean it was wrong or bad"

It is a dead-end, though.

While these cultures are interesting from anthropological point of view, I highly doubt you would give up all the benefits of the culture you live in today and join an Polynesean or Australian tribe.

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

#508

Post by gdy »

Xc43 wrote: post #201
r3trohack3r wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've woven this sentiment into my philosophy. I feel computers (and the networks between them) are a natural evolution of our hive mind. When we first started taking spoken language and committing it to writing, we created a hive mind that extended beyond a generation. Prior to that point, everything was passed on through observation of other humans (observing behavior, observing speech, etc.). This meant everything…

I am not a bee. I have no queen. I am not part of a hive, I am a social individual. This hive mind over-simplification is ridiculous and to me: disgusting. As if we were one

You have a queen and it makes you pay taxes and obey laws

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

#509

Post by pyrale »

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 don't want to break your ideal, but the description of go you make died decades ago. For a long time now, top go has been about fighting in the chuban, and there is no grand theory about that, only grinding your mind to read more combinations than your opponent.

Another correction about what you said is that computer go has brought tremendous evolutions to the pro scene. Josekis that were accepted for centuries have been challenged, and people have learned why. The value of sente has been emphasized, and pro players that have not learned are being pusshed out. In that aspect, computer go has brought change of a magnitude comparable to the shin fuseki movement.

Finally, it is expected that the availability of strong programs will bring a wave of better players, much like what happened in chess. I for one look forward to this happening.

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

#510

Post by timje1 »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #489
55555 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

2004 2007 a human won. Wow.

There was an interesting article a couple of years back, positing that the years that humans won coincide with unusually warm weather. The takeaway was the humans have a superior cooling system for efficient long distance running, compared to most animal's superior sprinting capabilities.
Post reply on HN