AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#221

Post by astrofinch » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 12:42 PM UTC

landryraccoon wrote: post #55

badminton1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a tool if you can't control it. Politicians fool countries delivering empty promises about better health, education and security. A supraintelligent AI could promise making humans rich, healthy and powerful, to then break its promise and dominate the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_box

Well, it would have to have a motivation to do so. Evolution has put complex motivations into human beings for billions of years, self preservation being chief among them. Even if we put motivation for self preservation into an AI, we might not do as well as nature did, leaving the AI open to self destruction or shutdown by humans - simply because the AI has no motivation not to allow humans to turn it off. Human des…

Self-preservation falls out of almost any other goal you give an AGI. If I program my AGI with the goal of making my startup succeed, and the AGI thinks it can help, then me shutting it off is a potential threat to my startup's success. So of course it will try to prevent that the same way it would try to prevent any other threat to my startup's success.

World domination is a similar situation. For any goal you give an AGI, one of the big risks that may prevent that goal from being accomplished will be the risk that humans intervene. Humans are a big source of uncertainty that will need to be managed and/or eliminated.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#222

Post by hueving » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 12:48 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #181

Radim wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alas, time is not on meat's side in this one.

It could one day be possible. There are savants that have the ability to work with complex working sets e.g. reciting Pi to a ridiculous precision, multiplying very large numbers or recalling images with photographic detail. So perhaps the problem isn't our brain's hardware as such but the operating system that runs on top of it.

But even in the savant's case, he/she can't simulate millions of games in parallel to improve strategy.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#223

Post by fma » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 12:50 PM UTC

ap22213 wrote: post #147

pushrax wrote: post #31

It's important to remember that this is an accomplishment of humanity, not a defeat. By constructing this AI, we are simply creating another tool for advancing our state of being. (or something like that)

I hate to be cynical, but I'm sure many of my ancestors were also told to believe similar things. I know for certain that my grandparents and great grandparents believed that technology would create such progress that people of my generation would not have to work, and all would have leisure time. AI is more likely to evolve into a tool to be used by the few to control the many.

Agreed. Even with so much automation and increase in productivity, we (at least In the US) are working just as much, if not more.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#224

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 12:53 PM UTC

m0g wrote: post #198

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> At this point it seems likely that Sedol is actually far outclassed by a superhuman player. I still don't agree that this is the case, and I don't care what a thousand Google-hyped press releases say, beating the best human player in anything is not "superhuman" and "superhuman" performance has not been achieved by anything yet. [1] Why do I think so? Two reasons. One, because you can be entirely human and still b…

Your pocket calculator is superhuman at arithmetic. Alphago is superhuman at go. It's not a big deal.

My pocket calculator is faster than a human and has better memory. I don't know that this means the same thing as "superhuman in arithmetic". I can concede that it means superhuman in speed and memory, but, arithmetic? I don't think so. What it really does is move bits around registers. We are the ones interpreting those as numbers and the results of arithmetic operations.

AlphaGo is rather different in that it actually has a representation of the game of Go and it knows how to play. I don't doubt at all that it's intelligent, in the restricted domain it operates in. But I do doubt that it's possible for an intelligence built by humans to be "superhuman" and I don't see how your one-liner addresses that.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#225

Post by empath75 » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 12:53 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #205

quanticle wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it funny that whenever there's a case of computers being able to do something that they couldn't before, whether it's drive or beat humans at Go, the goalpost on what is "true AI" shifts to be something that computers can't do yet. So let me ask you this. What would you consider to be "true AI"? At what point are you willing to say, "Okay, that's it, computers are just plain smarter than we are?" Because, fran…

>> What would you consider to be "true AI"? At what point are you willing to say, "Okay, that's it, computers are just plain smarter than we are?" Look, there's no doubt that computers can outperform humans in specific tasks. There's no doubt that AlphaGo is intelligent when it comes to Go, but on the other hand it would be completely incapable of tackling a different congitive task- say, language, or vision, or disc…

Actually alpha go can be trained for vision or any other task. It's not specialized to win go.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#226

Post by dzdt » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 12:53 PM UTC

nikbackm wrote: post #86

badminton1 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far more impressive than the Deep Blue moment. This time the computer did not win out of pure bruteforce. Deep Blue relied on an opening book and massive computational power to explore the game tree. After the opening it was pretty much on its own, bruteforcing moves. This technology used a neural network trained with hundreds of thousands of games which provided the pattern matching aspect, combined with the brutefo…

Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful supercomputer of its time, what might the corresponding placement of Alpha-Go be?

AlphaGo is using a 1920 cpu/ 280 gpu distributed setup for the Sedol games. One source reported the gpus are Nvidia K40. The gpus give a peak possible performance of 470 terraflops. That would put it somewhere in the middle of the Top500 list, similar to Deep Blue in its time.

Note though that AlphaGo almost certainly uses single precision arithmetic -- for neural networks even single precision is overkill.

Also the Top500 list is based on Linpack, which measures performance for computations that are pretty strongly interconnected across the different processors of the system. AlphaGo's Monte Carlo tree search problem is more embarrasingly parallel, with evaluation of different positions really being independent computations.

It is much easier to make systems that can handle embarrasingly parallel loads than the highly interconnected loads handled by the top500 supercomputers. So even though the flops are comparable, the systems are not.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#227

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 12:55 PM UTC

empath75 wrote: post #225

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> What would you consider to be "true AI"? At what point are you willing to say, "Okay, that's it, computers are just plain smarter than we are?" Look, there's no doubt that computers can outperform humans in specific tasks. There's no doubt that AlphaGo is intelligent when it comes to Go, but on the other hand it would be completely incapable of tackling a different congitive task- say, language, or vision, or disc…

Actually alpha go can be trained for vision or any other task. It's not specialized to win go.

Of course, but it has to be trained anew, with new data. You can't train it on Go data and expect it to perform at all well on vision tasks.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#228

Post by empath75 » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 12:56 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #195

Eliezer wrote: post #79

My (long) commentary here: https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154018209759228 Sample: At this point it seems likely that Sedol is actually far outclassed by a superhuman player. The suspicion is that since AlphaGo plays purely for probability of long-term victory rather than playing for points, the fight against Sedol generates boards that can falsely appear to a human to be balanced even as Sedol's probabili…

>> At this point it seems likely that Sedol is actually far outclassed by a superhuman player. I still don't agree that this is the case, and I don't care what a thousand Google-hyped press releases say, beating the best human player in anything is not "superhuman" and "superhuman" performance has not been achieved by anything yet. [1] Why do I think so? Two reasons. One, because you can be entirely human and still b…

There used to be jobs for thousands of people to do what pocket calculators do. Those jobs have been gone for decades. Humans entirely replaced by machines. So, yes, calculators are superhuman.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#229

Post by fma » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 12:57 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #100

Radim wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Challenging Ke Jie is way too small a goal for DeepMind at this point. I wonder if even the idea from the AGA stream today, to get all the best pros in the world together and challenge AlphaGo as a team, is enough. Perhaps releasing the core AlphaGo as open source (to the extent it's not dependent on internal Google machinery), or at least publishing its trained model, may be the next step. Let people "challenge them…

I wonder if even the idea from the AGA stream today, to get all the best pros in the world together and challenge AlphaGo as a team, is enough. Has this been tried? That is, have Players 2-9 (or some subset) ever competed as a group against a dominant Player 1? Unless it's been tested, I wouldn't take it for granted that a group would beat an individual.

Too many chiefs in a village. Can you imagine trying to explain why this move is correct because "20 moves in the future" it proves to be right. It would probably take an hour per move.

Also I mentioned in a previous post...the human style of playing go needs to adapt to AlphaGo. That's why the commentators say "oh that was odd" since a human would not make that move as its unorthodox, but turns out to be right.

If the top 1-10 had a chance to play AlphaGo privately for months they may have a better chance.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

#230

Post by jules » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 12:57 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #189

jules wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I play chess against a computer I can see very easily that I'm not winning.

The question is not if you can see that or not. The question is if you can see that earlier than the computer can see that it is winning.

If that is what is meant then you can't see that you're losing against any player that's any stronger than yourself by definition, because if you could see it earlier you wouldn't have made that move.