As a human, I'm pulling for the human. As a computer programmer, I'm pulling for the human. As a romantic, I'm pulling for the human. As a fan of science fiction, I'm pulling for the human. To me it will matter even he can pull off a 3-2 loss over a 4-1 loss.
Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4
271–280 of 471 posts
Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, it's a tradition that both Players should replay the game after the match, discuss about good moves, bad moves and what they were thinking during the match. I felt so sorry for Lee Sedol when I saw him lose the second match, facing an empty chair ,and he could only ask one of his friend to review the game. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%8D%E7%9B%98
He made $30k for losing that game, so I don't feel too sorry for him.
If it really was about money, I don't think he would have spent so much of his life dedicated to Go ...
Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4
#273My friends and I (many of us are enthusiastic Go lovers/players) have been following all of the games closely. AlphaGo's mid game today was really strange. Many experts have praised Lee's move 78 as a "divine-inspired" move. While it was a complex setup, in terms of number of searches I can't see it be any more complex than the games before. Indeed because it was a very much a local fight, the number of possible move…
AlphaGo's mid game today was really strange. Many experts have praised Lee's move 78 as a "divine-inspired" move.
Add to that the moves where AlphaGo basically threw away stones by adding to formations that would be removed from the table. Even I, a complete, lousy, amateur, could see that they were a mistake.
Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4
#274My friends and I (many of us are enthusiastic Go lovers/players) have been following all of the games closely. AlphaGo's mid game today was really strange. Many experts have praised Lee's move 78 as a "divine-inspired" move. While it was a complex setup, in terms of number of searches I can't see it be any more complex than the games before. Indeed because it was a very much a local fight, the number of possible move…
Given the 78 was a "divine inspired" move, and Demis tweeted that AlphaGo's mistake was move 79, my guess is that Black 78 was not in AlphaGo's search tree at all. It had pruned that move as being too "unlike what a human pro would do", and had not considered play beyond that point. Then it had to suddenly backtrack, drop its entire search tree, and start rebuilding from scratch. It took only a couple minutes to do so, but that's still not enough time to build up the depth and breadth of a tree that it had been constructing up to that point in the game. So it ended up playing a suboptimal move simply because Lee Sedol played a move that was simultaneously brilliant/strong and novel/unexpected, and it had to respond somehow.
Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not really silly moves, it's just that in order to get into a good state for AlphaGo, Lee Sedol would have to miss the obvious response to those moves.
If he had made a dumb move and AlphaGo capitalized on it we would be talking about how the AI goaded him into a sense of safety.
If he had made a dumb move in response then we would be talking about how he made a really really dumb move, that even an amateur could have seen.
The moves made by AlphaGo there were very bad.
Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
AlphaGo mostly plays against itself, meaning it learns in a very separate environment. It certainly might come up with novel strategies.
I suppose that's possible. However Demis Hassabis has said many people have noted that AlphaGo makes human-like moves. He commented that it made sense since AlphaGo taught itself from the games of human players.
Yes, the starting kernel of its learning this time was a collection of human games. This has caused the Policy Network (which says "given this board state, these moves are worth investigating in more detail") to be biased towards more human-like moves.
But they're already working on a new version of AlphaGo which isn't trained on any human data at all. It starts by making truly random moves and improves from there. This will require much more processing time and probably an order of magnitude more "self-play", but it will probably result in truly novel strategies that aren't part of the current human metagame.
Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4
#277Wow! Incredible! Now we know that they have a chance against each other. I would say that this was a very major point... otherwise we wouldn't know whether AlphaGo's powers have progressed to the point where no one can ever beat it. Now I take what Ke Je said much more seriously: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/1219091...
Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4
#278Right now I don't know if I'm more impressed by AlphaGo's artificial intelligence or its artificial stupidity. Lee Sedol won because he played extremely well. But when AlphaGo was already losing it made some very bad moves. One of them was so bad that it's the kind of mistake you would only expect from someone who's starting to learn how to play Go.
Maybe it has never been in a losing position before?
Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
NN = nomen nescio ("I don't know the name") You use it when you cannot name the source of a quote, or when you would like to protect the source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomen_nescio
Wouldn't "-Unknown" convey the same sense without the possible confusion?
NN is (was) also used in neapolitan comedy, derived from earlier use throughout the Roman Empire and Middle Age.
The "figlio di NN", or "son of NN" means someone who was found and adopted (typically by nuns) and whose parents were unknown.
NN can be used in general for people whose origin is uncertain. I think in this specific case it's a bit misleading - although the wikipedia article seems to suggest that NN can also be used as a synonym for "unknown", although from a historical perspective it is a bit incorrect.
The literal translation from Latin creates some confusion if you didn't know the context.
I hope this helps.
Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean that it bugged out because the moves it made after missing the exchange in the middle were moves that were obviously wrong, not in a "maybe it's up to something" kind of way, but in an objectively 100% bad kind of way. Even if you can't analyze all possibilities AlphaGo made a number of moves that made absolutely no sense at all even to way lower level players.
> a number of moves that made absolutely no sense at all even to way lower level players. Another possibility is that it was looking way deeper than anybody, and there was a 1% chance or turning the whole game around with those seemingly bad moves. But Lee Sedol blocked that deep move in a way nobody was able to see.
No. That is not what happened. They were genuinely bad moves.