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

#551

Post by pyrale » Sun, Dec 01, 2019, 4:56 PM UTC

breatheoften wrote: post #549

pyrale wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

Interesting - I definitely have only a surface understanding of the go community and had not respected that the community embraces the game’s “requirement to grind the combinations”. I had always thought there was some element of recognizing its “impossible to ever even remotely approach a true grinding of the combinations” for go — and that somehow players _did something else_ effectively when they played at a high…

It is indeed impossible to evaluate every possibility, especially for humans. Still, midgame fighting is all about evaluating as much as possible and to estimate an unfinished position.

It is not imaginable now that humans will beat a machine in the future, but it is also undeniable that humans progressed from computer go. The evolution of joseki (game patterns considered fair for both players), especially corner joseki are material evidence of that.

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

#552

Post by neohaven » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

sujNansnam wrote: post #359

neohaven wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, here I am, bringing up something no one seems to bring up in the thread. One would also logically come to the conclusions that disparate AIs with disparate interests would find different things to express, to make music about, to draw about. What distinguishes music written by AI from music made from humans? I have a story to tell. If the AI has a story to tell, one that speaks to our human emotions, it migh…

What your comment suggests to me is that good composition requires an agent with a world model and generalized task-solving ability, along with a personality. I think developing the world model and task-solving will be the hard part, and if we can do it, it won’t be that hard to make it have a personality too. That’s just another task.

What my comment is trying to suggest is that AIs are not proven to be different from us. They might not have one "ultimate" form. They might be just like us humans. Diverse.

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

#553

Post by karmakaze » Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

alanfalcon wrote: post #480

csa wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For me, day 3 was the stunner even though the writing was already on the wall.

Day 1 was a great surprise but I was still left wondering if it was a fluke. Day 2 showed that it was no fluke and I started to get a sinking feeling. I guessed that Lee Sedol would lose the third game and win the fourth after the pressure of the Korea and humanity was off him.

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

#554

Post by r3trohack3r » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 10:02 PM UTC

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

I feel like you’re over-indexing on the word “hive”.

It’s not about having a queen or mindlessly following. Being a part of a hive mind doesn’t make you a lemming.

Example to demonstrate: assume you know calculus. How much of calculus did you discover yourself? How much of the corpus of math that led up to calculus did you discover yourself? How much of that corpus is your individual contribution vs. how much of it represents the brain power of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of other humans throughout history exploring that problem domain?

For any given problem domain, humans have documented it in a shared corpus that you can “download” into your brain. You are an individual. You still get to choose what to download and how to interpret it. But you are still sharing in a commons when you do this. That commons is what I’m referring to as a hive mind, it’s a shared consciousness where our collective brain power is building a corpus that no single brain could. It extends far beyond ourselves.