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

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

#241

Post by 3minus1 » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 1:17 PM UTC

awwducks wrote: post #67

Radim wrote: post #57

In a recent interview [1], Hassabis (DeepMind founder) said they'd try training AlphaGo from scratch next, so it learns from first principles. Without the bootstrapping step of "learn from a database of human games", which introduce human prejudice. As a Go player, I'm really excited to see what kind of play will come from that! [1] http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/10/11192774/demis-hassabis-in...

That would be amazing if it could achieve the same levels (or higher) without the bootstrapping. The niggling thought in my mind was that AlphaGo's strength is built on human strength.

I'm pretty sure that the reinforcement learning algorithm they are using is guaranteed to converge. It just takes a very long time to train, and using human games probably sped it up.

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

#242

Post by DavidSJ » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 1:21 PM UTC

pmontra wrote: post #179

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know what the current limit is on a handicap that a professional player can overcome? Is there a known theoretical limit? That's a possible 'endgame' for go ai.

There must be some limit because the number of the possible moves is finite. How many handicap stones the current professionals are from that limit... who knows. Apparently AlphaGo could set a better lower limit but it should play with many more pros, and start giving handicap if needed. I wonder if Google will make it available to pros outside these official matches. It's not that Deep Blue played so much after winn…

There's a single machine version, which beats the distributed version 30% of the time. That should be plenty strong to be useful.

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

#243

Post by argonaut » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 1:22 PM UTC

quanticle wrote: post #166

studentrob wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll grant that for this very constrained problem ;-) I respect your work a lot. I've studied and used ML myself, including gensim, in industry. I've given nowhere near your level of contribution to society / the field. My opinion is true AI is quite a ways off. I haven't read anything from a ML researcher that says it isn't. Perhaps you weren't saying true AI is nearer.

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…

He's not saying that AIs can't be smarter than humans. My interpretation is he's implying that AlphaGo does not indicate that much progress towards AGI.

I'd also like to point out that you didn't define "smart" or "intelligent" either. The fact is, it's a very very difficult concept to define.

Reposting this comment from another thread:

The "moving goalposts" argument is one that really needs to die. It's a classic empty statement. Just because other people made in the past does not mean it's wrong. It proves nothing. People also predicted "true AI" many times over-optimistically; probably just as often as people have moved goalposts.

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

#244

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 1:23 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#245

Post by eggy » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 1:25 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…

I agree somewhat, but then what is your gauge for superhuman if not some type of competition? How do you evaluate it? On another note, Rocky Marciano had the mafia behind him. Harry Haft fought him and was knocked out, and later claimed the mafia told him he had to throw the fight [1]. There's also a good graphic novel about this. Maybe the AI's goons have threatened Sedol or kin ;)

   [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Haft

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

#246

Post by Madmallard » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 1:26 PM UTC

quanticle wrote: post #166

studentrob wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll grant that for this very constrained problem ;-) I respect your work a lot. I've studied and used ML myself, including gensim, in industry. I've given nowhere near your level of contribution to society / the field. My opinion is true AI is quite a ways off. I haven't read anything from a ML researcher that says it isn't. Perhaps you weren't saying true AI is nearer.

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…

I think humanity will be drastically changed by AI-made decisions calculated by human overseers but not so much that AI will be designed to communicate with one another, have access to markets, and the freedom to decide what they want to do. Is there a sci-fi novel that assumes that approach?

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

#247

Post by argonaut » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 1:26 PM UTC

anonaoeu wrote: post #103

landryraccoon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If an AI has any motivation at all, say, to make paperclips as efficiently as possible, then any threat to its existence is a threat to its objective function - namely, to create paperclips. A hyper-intelligent entity who is instructed to optimize for paperclips created will therefore proactively remove threats to its existence (i.e. its paperclip-creating functionality) and might possibly turn the entire solar syste…

Such an entity would not be hyper-intelligent. It would be idiotic. One huge hole for me in the paperclip argument is that an AI capable of that kind of power would not be stupid enough to misinterpret a command - it would be intelligent enough to infer human desires.

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

#248

Post by mastazi » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 1:28 PM UTC

jules wrote: post #230

jacquesm wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is exactly what the parent meant

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

#249

Post by Madmallard » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 1:29 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.

The way in which it is superhuman matters. The calculator uses simple mechanical algorithms. Alpha Go uses a completely novel approach to deep learning that can likely be applied to many other systems/problems.

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

#250

Post by camperman » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 1:30 PM UTC

tzaman wrote: post #193

dnzm wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BRB, installing Linux...

Watch our for nvidia drivers :)

And be careful of systemd. Most days you'll wake up in 2 seconds but occasionally you'll be comatose for the whole day with no way to find out what's wrong.