I wonder how long until AI starts writing bestselling novels.
AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
211–220 of 576 posts
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#212Someone somewhere asked why a lot of people in the Go community is taking this in a somewhat hard way, here is my hypothesis: Go, unlike Chess, has deep mytho attached to it. Throughout the history of many Asian countries it's seen as the ultimate abstract strategy game that deeply relies on players' intuition, personality, worldview. The best players are not described as "smart", they are described as "wise". I thin…
> And now an AI without emotion, philosophy or personality just comes in and brushes all of that aside and turns Go into a simple game of mathematics
Well, I am of the opinion that mathematics is the language that subsumes all other kinds of languages and line of thoughts. In the end we shall be able to describe every idea or thought in purely mathematical form.
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#213I don't get the mystery of this. This algorithm is complex. SURE! But deep learning is very fast training / repeatition of a game (or some other goal) while saving the good or bad results. Predict user moves. Find good positions/patterns. Or did i miss some here?
https://web.archive.org/web/20160128151110/https://storage.g...
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually this AI kind of confirms these myths, since its basis are not in mathematics but in neural networks. While it could be argued to be just math, so is the brain, but that's besides the point. The point is, even the programmers have no idea what the AI is thinking. The way it picks moves is very similar to how top professionals do. Intuition is reduced to memories stored vaguely as neural connections.
I fear this is an overly mystical misinterpretation of neural nets. (Standard feed-forward) neural nets are layers of non-linear feature transformations. They take inputs and at each step transform those inputs into a more compact representation, distilling the inputs into their most important factors (and throwing away unimportant factors). So the most likely explanation is that policy/value nets in AlphaGo have lea…
> distilling the inputs into their most important factors (and throwing away unimportant factors).
Isn't that pretty much the definition of intuition? Combining a bunch of things in some unknown and nonlinear way to result in a 'feeling' about the situation?
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#215Someone somewhere asked why a lot of people in the Go community is taking this in a somewhat hard way, here is my hypothesis: Go, unlike Chess, has deep mytho attached to it. Throughout the history of many Asian countries it's seen as the ultimate abstract strategy game that deeply relies on players' intuition, personality, worldview. The best players are not described as "smart", they are described as "wise". I thin…
How soon we forget. Twenty or thirty years ago Chess was spoken of in exactly those reverent tones.
I suppose in the era of Bobby Fischer, chess was proxy for superpower one-upmanship. That's long gone, but Chess as a game is still doing fine and I expect that it will be the same for Go.
We still have chess tournaments, super-star grandmasters and circus freaks (people who can play blindfolded against multiple opponents). And, yes, computers can easily smoke all but elite players.
Why should Go be different?
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#216This game was largely played extremely well by both sides. There were a a few peculiar-seeming moves made by AlphaGo that the commentator found very atypical. These moves ended up playing a very important role in the end game. I should also say that it's somewhat clear that Sedol made one suboptimal move, and AlphaGo capitalized on it. Interestingly, the English commentator made the same mistake as he was predicting…
> I should also say that it's somewhat clear that Sedol made one suboptimal move, and AlphaGo capitalized on it.
Can you please indicate this time in the video of the game? Thanks a lot.
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean it's not clear in anyway "where" is the intuition, it just sort of magically emerges from the connections and the weights in a way that no one can really grasp. If nothing else, just due to the sheer number of neurones.
Is this just something you're imagining, or did Google's developers explicitly say, "AlphaGo is beyond our understanding. We have absolutely no idea how it makes its decisions"?
AlphaGo developers don't understand how it works in the same way you wouldn't understand how the program you've written to find prime numbers actually found a big prime number. The sequence of operations is known, but numbers are too big to be comprehended.
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#218Lee Sedol seemed to be doing well before he went into extra time (as far as I could follow from the commentators). How is it ensured that this is a fair game given the time constraints? I'm guessing adding more computing power to the AlphaGo program should definitely help it in this regard.
> How is it ensured that this is a fair game given the time constraints? Both players get the same time controls, seems fair to me But if you're saying humans might fare better against computers in a game with a longer time control, I suspect that's true
I think it is the other way around.
The human's strength is intuition and insight. They can look at a move and have a good understanding of strengths and weaknesses of positions by "feel" developed by long practice of the game. More time doesn't really help this much.
Another part of the game is "reading" -- playing out scenarios of response and counter-response to evaluate how strong a move is. The computer excels at this, because it can play out as many moves as its computation time allows and remember all the results with complete accuracy. Humans are slower and prone to mistakes when they do lots of reading.
So adding clock time lets the computer increase its advantage over the human in reading depth, but doesn't so much increase the human's advantage of intuition and insight.
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
AlphaGo did paradigm shifting moves.
How so?
The top comment on Reddit says:
"As a casual player of Go myself, some of the moves that AlphaGo made were crazy. Even one of the 9th Dan analysts said something along the lines of 'That move has never been made in the history of Go, and its brillant.' and 'Professional Go players will be learning and copying that move as a part of the Go canon now'."
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#220Someone somewhere asked why a lot of people in the Go community is taking this in a somewhat hard way, here is my hypothesis: Go, unlike Chess, has deep mytho attached to it. Throughout the history of many Asian countries it's seen as the ultimate abstract strategy game that deeply relies on players' intuition, personality, worldview. The best players are not described as "smart", they are described as "wise". I thin…
Now go read "The Player of Games", by Iain M. Banks, to see that idea taken to extremes.
That was the first Culture novel I ever read, and still probably my favourite. Time to dig it out and read it again!