Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 596 posts

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#291

Post by tel »

exDM69 wrote: post #172
gearhart wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1202 CPUs and 176 GPUs apparently edit: according to the livestream

1202 CPUs and 176 GPUs is the figure mentioned in the Nature paper. But it's important to understand that this is the computer used to train the networks used by the algorithm. It took about 30+ days worth of wallclock to train it. That's about 110 megawatt-hours (MWh) worth of energy required! During the play, the computational requirements are vastly less (but I don't know the figures). It's still probably more tha…

Are they vastly less, though? The core of the algorithm is still a deep Monte Carlo Tree Search which AlphaGo gets quite a boost on computationally for being able to fire it off in parallel. It's obviously incorrect to take the training system and assume it's identical to the live system, but I think it's disingenuous to say the live system didn't have some serious horsepower.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#292

Post by mlvljr »

afc wrote: post #284
sergiosgc wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As solid as your argument may be, everyone saw arguments like this over and over. Every single time they were solid. For a time, it was the high frequency noise that would not be manageable (80s), then heat dissipation (90s), then limits on pipeline optimization (00s) and now size constraints on transistors. They were all hard barriers, deemed impossible and all were overcome. I already know that your answer will be:…

This looks like a good example of the Normalcy bias logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias That previous constraints have been beaten in no way supports the argument that we will beat the laws of physics this time.

So have we done it in the previous times? :)

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#293

Post by eitally »

esturk wrote: post #24
sethbannon wrote: post #7

I was at the 2003 match of Garry Kasparov vs Deep Junior -- the strongest chess player of all time vs what was at that point the strongest chess playing computer in history. Kasparov drew that match, but it was clear it was the last stand of homo sapiens in the man vs machine chess battle. Back then, people took solace in the game of Go. Many boldly and confidently predicted we wouldn't see a computer beat the Go wor…

I've never felt playing against what is suppose to be an entire room of machines (wether Deep Blue or Watson) to be fair. What would be fair is to limit the total mass of the computer to say 200kg and leave it at that. What is effectively happening is AlphaGo is running on a distributed system of many, many machines. Even Watson took an entire room. Google is paying a premium to push AlphaGo to win.

Besides disagreeing with you, this actually isn't true at all. In competition, AlphaGo doesn't rely on particularly expansive hardware. For training, yes, but not for playing.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#294

Post by ausjke »

No surprise at all, human brain is an organ with limited neurons, and computer doubles its performance very 18 months. In fact not just the chess, I would say that AI will beat human all around at unlimited ratio in the future, when they learned how to improve themselves especially.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#295

Post by Vraxx »

lmm wrote: post #239
cbd1984 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advanced chess players require a society which produces enough surplus to afford enough leisure to allow someone to not only produce a brain not damaged by starvation, but to allow them to use that brain to learn chess at a high level. It took a very long time for humans to get to that level, even though chess is a fairly old game. My point is, humans "in the wild" likely didn't have any equivalent to chess, because…

Games, including complex ones, go back a long way in human history. I've seen various claims about how much free time people have in primitive societies and I don't know enough to really know which are correct. The modern style of chess play relies on having openings books and computer assistance, but that's less true of go, which AIUI is learned largely through practice and a cultivation of taste and instinct (and t…

Games may have existed, but the relative skill level of the players was likely a lot lower when people weren't spending as much time mastering the game, spreading and consuming strategy knowledge, and constantly holding events to compete and refine the best players.

I think the entire analogy is stretched a little thin of the players requiring all of this, but I also think the original attack on the Go AI based on it's mass is off base as well.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#296

Post by argonaut »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #266
panic wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's totally impressive! I'm excited for the future of DeepMind and to see what other kinds of things we can build from neural networks. I'm just saying that we have to be careful with what kind of intelligence we ascribe to an algorithm like this. An AI is not going to take over the world by impressing us with its game-playing skills.

> An AI is not going to take over the world by impressing us with its game-playing skills. What if you train an AI to play an RTS where matter, energy, and time are the resources and the goal is to take over the world?

I'm not going to fear an AI whose idea of "the world" is a computer game, an AI that isn't even aware of the existence of the real world, and isn't even aware of the existence of the set of real world actions.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#297

Post by gjm11 »

Eliezer wrote: post #30
EGreg wrote: post #17

Does this mean in the next few decades, computers will make better sex partners and companions than any human?

Worrying about the effect of strong AI on sexual relationships is like worrying about the effect on US-Chinese trade patterns if the Moon crashes into the Earth.

You're right. You should get in touch with the author of this http://lesswrong.com/lw/xu/failed_utopia_42/ and tell him :-).

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#298

Post by cuckcuckspruce »

lmm wrote: post #239
cbd1984 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advanced chess players require a society which produces enough surplus to afford enough leisure to allow someone to not only produce a brain not damaged by starvation, but to allow them to use that brain to learn chess at a high level. It took a very long time for humans to get to that level, even though chess is a fairly old game. My point is, humans "in the wild" likely didn't have any equivalent to chess, because…

Games, including complex ones, go back a long way in human history. I've seen various claims about how much free time people have in primitive societies and I don't know enough to really know which are correct. The modern style of chess play relies on having openings books and computer assistance, but that's less true of go, which AIUI is learned largely through practice and a cultivation of taste and instinct (and t…

But you have to admit that it's easier to learn fuseki when you don't have to worry about being eaten by a tiger.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#299

Post by Vraxx »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #258
talles wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting to measure computing power by kilograms? That's even stupider than measuring software complexity by LOC.

It's not obviously stupid, as a bounding argument as we approach physical limits.

That's based on the assumption that computing must exist as silicon transistors. When would we have reached the bounds of computation based on physical limits if we had stuck with vacuum tubes. The point is computation is an abstract concept and not tied to the physical medium that we use.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#300

Post by eutectic »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #289
afc wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This looks like a good example of the Normalcy bias logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias That previous constraints have been beaten in no way supports the argument that we will beat the laws of physics this time.

The previous problems were solved because people were willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to solve them. And they are still spending that kinds of money. If the normalcy bias was in effect, they wouldn't be spending that money.

And the cost of building a fab is increasing exponentially; eventually that trend has to come to an end.
Post reply on HN