Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 214 posts

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#101

Post by badminton1 »

hyperpape wrote: post #92
badminton1 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the ranking system you refer to is the one based on total wins over a player career and doesn't consider loses like ELO or other rating systems do. http://senseis.xmp.net/?NihonKiInNewPromotionSystem Fernando Aguilar, a 6 dan amateur from Argentina ( http://senseis.xmp.net/?FernandoAguilar ) defeated 2 Nihon Kiin 9 professional dans (Hasegawa Sunao and Yo Kagen), which is unexpected given the substantial rank di…

Two things: 1) The two 9p professionals you mentioned achieved 9p status before the new promotion system you linked to. The new standards are much more stringent (though still based on lifetime achievement). 2) The standards differ by country. All the major countries now give out 9p ranks sparingly, but I think China especially may be quite difficult.

Sure but #1 is not so relevant since the old promotion system was also based in total number of wins rather than strength.

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#102

Post by iopq »

conanbatt wrote: post #100
iopq wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing trap moves is not that rare and it shows that you expect the opponent not to know a complicated variation.

Strong players dont play "trap moves"

Who said anything about strong players?

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#103

Post by dwaltrip »

jonmc12 wrote: post #11

Interesting reddit discussion before reveal. Assesses bot identity and gameplay: https://www.reddit.com/r/baduk/comments/5l3l7e/chinese_ai_cr...

The reddit thread also links to more interesting discussion on the board lifein19x19:

http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&p=215117#p21...

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#104

Post by IanCal »

nardi wrote: post #80
drcode wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is somewhat incorrect- The creators of AlphaGo made it clear that their system does not take the opponent into account at all, it just answers the question "What is the strongest move right now?" and plays that move, without taking the opponent into account. In other words, it does not have any mental model of the opponent. However, you are correct insofar that it doesn't care about winning by large marg…

All competitive-game-playing AIs ask, "What will my opponent play in response to this move?" It's possible for an AI to evaluate a move based solely on the resulting board position, but it wouldn't be very good. Pretty much all AIs play many turns out to see if the move is any good. In the case of AlphaGo and Monte Carlo tree search, they actually play to the end of the game many times. To do this, they must of cours…

Ah but I think the key here is that it doesn't say "how will this player respond" but "how would a player respond".

No matter how I've played against it to get to where we are, it'll play the same from that point on. It won't identify me as a risky player from my pattern, nor will it try and classify me as "unpredictable" in some way. It'll play each move as though it has sat down at an already in-progress game between two random opponents.

> It's possible for an AI to evaluate a move based solely on the resulting board position, but it wouldn't be very good. Pretty much all AIs play many turns out to see if the move is any good.

I would strongly argue that these are identical situations. Playing out scenarios in your head but taking into account no history is the same as "evaluating a move based solely on the board position".

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#105

Post by panic »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #20
dfan wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human moves tend to fit a narrative and be explainable, although often for very concrete reasons. For example: "I am sketching out territory while attacking an opponent group." "I am making my group safe so that I will not have to worry about its life while I accomplish other strategic goals." "I am making a very strong group so that I can use it to make it harder for my opponent to accomplish anything." Master, on t…

When playing against a much stronger player, it's always very hard to figure out why they play tenuki (make a move somewhere else on the board, apparently uncorrelated to the current fight). When AI gets strong enough (and it seems like it has already), it will just tenuki everyone all the time, while winning. Sounds like exactly what's happening already. It's past the event horizon for human understanding.

To be fair, humans haven't had a lot of time to analyze AlphaGo's play. It's possible that we could understand these moves after some study.

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#107

Post by 1024core »

stouset wrote: post #78
dfan wrote: post #7

One thing that isn't made clear in this writeup is that Master plays in a very nonhuman style, as opposed to the version of AlphaGo that beat Lee Sedol, which mostly played like a strong human except for a few surprising moves. My first guess when I saw Master's games was that it was a program like AlphaGo that had its policy network trained from scratch rather than being bootstrapped by being given the goal of imita…

As computers are able to evaluate positions faster (and therefore deeper), the "godlike" tactics are dominating over human-style strategy. It used to be that computers played "computer-like" moves because they didn't understand the position. Now, they play computer-like moves because "understanding" the position isn't as important as just being able to see 25+ moves ahead. In a nutshell, positional play in chess is s…

> Now, they play computer-like moves because "understanding" the position isn't as important as just being able to see 25+ moves ahead.

I don't think you can "see 25+ moves ahead" in Go. The branchout factor is just too big.

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#108

Post by nilkn »

GolDDranks wrote: post #82
Ajedi32 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> games played by KGS 6 to 9 dan human players I'm confused. I thought 9-dan players were considered pro? That's the highest ranking you can get, right?

There are multiple dan scales. The KGS scale is an amateur dan scale. I don't know how much the scales overlap generally, but I'd imagine a 9 pro-dan professional to be somewhere around 12 dan on amateur scale (pro scales also have more dense scaling). However, the scales reach the ceiling at 9 dan by convention. Even the abbreviations differ: 9d (amateur dan) vs 9p (pro dan).

There's an Elo rating table on this Wikipedia page which pretty much corroborates/agrees with this:

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

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#109

Post by skmurphy »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #46
seanwilson wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human moves tend to fit a narrative and be explainable, although often for very concrete reasons. I'm not a Go player, but could it not be that if the AI played its moved in a more human order you could see what was going on and assign a narrative to the moves, but the AI can see the order of the moves doesn't matter sometimes so it seems to play more vaguely/randomly to observers? For example, say the AI played a…

You call it narrative when you understand what's going on. You call it chaos when it's far above your head.

Good insight, I think there are implications for the Cynefin framework model that offers four possible state spaces: simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic. This classification may have as much to do with our state of information (or depth of understanding) as an objectively "chaotic state."

Re: Google reveals secret test of AI bot to beat top Go players

#110

Post by skmurphy »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #20
dfan wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human moves tend to fit a narrative and be explainable, although often for very concrete reasons. For example: "I am sketching out territory while attacking an opponent group." "I am making my group safe so that I will not have to worry about its life while I accomplish other strategic goals." "I am making a very strong group so that I can use it to make it harder for my opponent to accomplish anything." Master, on t…

When playing against a much stronger player, it's always very hard to figure out why they play tenuki (make a move somewhere else on the board, apparently uncorrelated to the current fight). When AI gets strong enough (and it seems like it has already), it will just tenuki everyone all the time, while winning. Sounds like exactly what's happening already. It's past the event horizon for human understanding.

"past event horizon for human understanding" I think you are too pessimistic and that "centaur Go" will evolve in the same way that "centaur chess" is, where a player (or team of players) with access to the software can outperform the stand-alone software. I guess my vote is for "intelligence augmentation" over AI, if only because opaque models/algorithms cannot benefit from human creativity.
Post reply on HN