Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people operate on a moving definition of intelligence as "whatever humans can do and machines can't" (thus ruling out AI by definition). If software started writing bestselling novels, it would soon become a "duh that's just what computers do" matter of fact.
I'd say if anything the average person's perception of what AI can do in the opposite direction. In the mid twentieth century the idea of a near future involving computers/robots that thought and interacted much like humans but never made mistakes was pretty mainstream. People have rather dialled back their expectations of feasible computers since then, to the point the average layman thinks a hardcoded easter egg hu…
AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
221–230 of 576 posts
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#222Let's compare Go and Chess. We all know that Go is more complex that Chess, but how much more? There's 10^50 atoms in the planet Earth. That's a lot. Let's put a chess board in each of them. We'll count each possible permutation of each of the chess boards as a separate position. That's a lot, right? There's 10^50 atoms, and 10^40 positions in each chess board so that gives us 10^90 total positions. That's a lot of p…
Starcraft has way more possible board states
There's a Starcraft AI League (http://sscaitournament.com/) you might be interested in.
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#223Someone 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…
> AI without emotion, philosophy or personality just comes in and brushes all of that aside and turns Go into a simple game of mathematics.
Just wait until machines start producing top notch research in experimental fields such as chemistry and Physics...
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#224Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Pretty much. The nature of evaluating a Go position, is that it has some notions of similarity like islands, "aliveness", and local features that can be looked at liberty-wise. But in order to fully understand how it all pieces together, one must have seen other positions to intuit the kind of future playstyle that will result in the game. Anyhow, it's perfect for a stochaistic system that just recognizes patterns. As long as you can provide the tree search (ie. the partial position evaluation) you can basically just let it rip.
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#226Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Which kind of makes me think. Would machine learning succeed even mildly at recognizing primes? Would we be able to decode the final weights after weeks of learning, and find a sieve program encoded as data?
Well apparently my question leads to some deep mathematic theories about languages encoded by data. http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/15039/why-can-ma...
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#228Someone 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 imagine the winning author of the next Hugo Award turns out to be an AI, how unsettling would that be.
I've been thinking precisely about that. I think a book written by a machine will make the NYT bestseller list within our lifetimes (I would give it a 75% chance within 10 years, but that's just a gut feeling).
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#229Let's compare Go and Chess. We all know that Go is more complex that Chess, but how much more? There's 10^50 atoms in the planet Earth. That's a lot. Let's put a chess board in each of them. We'll count each possible permutation of each of the chess boards as a separate position. That's a lot, right? There's 10^50 atoms, and 10^40 positions in each chess board so that gives us 10^90 total positions. That's a lot of p…
On the other hand, 2^565 is already slightly larger than 10^170. In other words, a couple of hydrogen atoms as quantum bits can perfectly well encode every possible position.
Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Because it is far more complex.
But apparently self learning KI has advanced enough.
And yes, chess has lost some reputation. And I guess it will be similar with go. I mean there is a University just for go. But learning something where you know you can become the best, is something different, than learning something knowing computers will be allways better than you ... so I guess they are having a hard time right now ..