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

AlphaGo's next move

deepmind.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 179 posts

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#21

Post by computerex »

blazespin wrote: post #7
binarymax wrote: post #3

I remember vividly in 1997 when Deep Blue defeated Kasparov, and I was a competitive chess player. The mystique of the game was immediately lost for me, and I never found the passion for the game that I once had. My heart goes out to the sea of Go players now searching for meaning in the game. At the very least we can take this signal as a true indicator that our world is close to being completely upheaved by intelli…

Bit hyperbolic. Go at it's heart is a pretty basic game, just tricky combinatorics. The fact that you can do unsupervised learning simplifies it even more. I think there are much better true indicators, such as better translation, speech to text, auto driving, etc.

I think you are being hyperbolic here. Go is in a lot of respect much more challenging than machine translation, speech to text and auto-driving. All of the latter problems you described have had solutions for decades whereas Alpha Go is literally state of the art. It even uses proprietary hardware (TPU's) and was essentially engineered by one if not the most elite ML lab in the world. Their solution consists of an ensemble of many models including MCTS, supervised learning, reinforcement learning. Much more complicated than what you are thinking. Go read the paper, it's free.

Go is a lot harder than you think for machines to play.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#22

Post by bamboozled »

binarymax wrote: post #3

I remember vividly in 1997 when Deep Blue defeated Kasparov, and I was a competitive chess player. The mystique of the game was immediately lost for me, and I never found the passion for the game that I once had. My heart goes out to the sea of Go players now searching for meaning in the game. At the very least we can take this signal as a true indicator that our world is close to being completely upheaved by intelli…

Fish are way better at swimming than humans, it's still great fun. I don't get it.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#23

Post by binarymax »

matt4077 wrote: post #19
probably_wrong wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are several activities right now that people keep doing despite machines being better suited: martial arts (and more in point, HEMA[1]), handicrafts, several Olympic sports. Why would anyone attempt to run a marathon under two hours, when any car can do it in 30 minutes? I think the answer lies less in "I will be the absolute best", and more along the lines of "I will do it better than anyone before me". And so…

It does feel like there's a difference–maybe Go and Chess are just so much closer to what defines humanity than any physical sports?

Yes and physical prowess was never dominated by humans anyway. We are surrounded by creatures which can fly and swim and sprint far better than any human ever could. But our minds is what separates us from the beasts. We've never been second place in the thought competition.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#24

Post by namarie »

binarymax wrote: post #23
matt4077 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does feel like there's a difference–maybe Go and Chess are just so much closer to what defines humanity than any physical sports?

Yes and physical prowess was never dominated by humans anyway. We are surrounded by creatures which can fly and swim and sprint far better than any human ever could. But our minds is what separates us from the beasts. We've never been second place in the thought competition.

Aren't we actually better at endurance running than any other animal?

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#25

Post by bad_user »

binarymax wrote: post #23
matt4077 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does feel like there's a difference–maybe Go and Chess are just so much closer to what defines humanity than any physical sports?

Yes and physical prowess was never dominated by humans anyway. We are surrounded by creatures which can fly and swim and sprint far better than any human ever could. But our minds is what separates us from the beasts. We've never been second place in the thought competition.

Actually, we are pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#26

Post by namarie »

dingledog wrote: post #18
binarymax wrote: post #3

I remember vividly in 1997 when Deep Blue defeated Kasparov, and I was a competitive chess player. The mystique of the game was immediately lost for me, and I never found the passion for the game that I once had. My heart goes out to the sea of Go players now searching for meaning in the game. At the very least we can take this signal as a true indicator that our world is close to being completely upheaved by intelli…

I, too, remember this. I'm very close to the chess engine scene, and while people (such as replies to this thread) have tried to argue that engine development has not taken away from chess, I'm afraid their misguided. Anybody paying attention to top level chess knows that it has turned into mind bogglingly boring forced draw lines due to engine analysis. I've seen super GMs argue that analysis is so deep now that "e4…

Actually, draws are almost impossible in Go.

I also doubt that pros will try to memorize openings like chess players would; they're very different games and this sort of opening memorization is way more important and efficient in chess than in go.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#27

Post by b6 »

probably_wrong wrote: post #12
binarymax wrote: post #3

I remember vividly in 1997 when Deep Blue defeated Kasparov, and I was a competitive chess player. The mystique of the game was immediately lost for me, and I never found the passion for the game that I once had. My heart goes out to the sea of Go players now searching for meaning in the game. At the very least we can take this signal as a true indicator that our world is close to being completely upheaved by intelli…

There are several activities right now that people keep doing despite machines being better suited: martial arts (and more in point, HEMA[1]), handicrafts, several Olympic sports. Why would anyone attempt to run a marathon under two hours, when any car can do it in 30 minutes? I think the answer lies less in "I will be the absolute best", and more along the lines of "I will do it better than anyone before me". And so…

> And sometimes, even "I will do my best" is an excellent reason for doing things.

Man, I think this is absolutely it. I feel very sorry for someone who would pin their happiness on being the best in the world. It may not be within your ability! I simply cannot run faster than Usain Bolt. So that's not the game! The game is just to do my best.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#28

Post by candiodari »

oska wrote: post #13
candiodari wrote: post #11

It's scary how coverage of this match in China, which is extensive, actually manages to censor the association between Deepmind and Google.

The microphones used in the post match discussion featured the name “Google” quite prominently. I imagine that was a negotiated detail.

There's different post match discussions.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#29

Post by agildehaus »

namarie wrote: post #24
binarymax wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and physical prowess was never dominated by humans anyway. We are surrounded by creatures which can fly and swim and sprint far better than any human ever could. But our minds is what separates us from the beasts. We've never been second place in the thought competition.

Aren't we actually better at endurance running than any other animal?

I think so. It's all about heat regulation: we have far more sweat glands than any other species, even our ape ancestors.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#30

Post by SuperPaintMan »

grondilu wrote: post #8
binarymax wrote: post #3

I remember vividly in 1997 when Deep Blue defeated Kasparov, and I was a competitive chess player. The mystique of the game was immediately lost for me, and I never found the passion for the game that I once had. My heart goes out to the sea of Go players now searching for meaning in the game. At the very least we can take this signal as a true indicator that our world is close to being completely upheaved by intelli…

The computer supremacy certainly took something out of chess, but it also added a lot : it makes checking tactics trivial even for amateurs, it enormously enriched opening theory, and it made learning much easier for players of all levels (even Grand Masters).

Disclaimer: Mostly play at club level and in parks with randoms for cigarette bets

What I've seen is a move away from attempting to understand why a given position was faulty in the first place, instead running a game through a engine and using that as an arbiter of correct/inadvisable moves. While effective it just feels, sterile. Give me romantic play or burn my board.

Post reply on HN