Earlier quoted context omitted.
>social individual There’s your hive
Spiders interact with each other. Are they part of a hive?
Other than mating (and then killing their mates), how do spiders interact?
Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
291–300 of 554 posts
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if it is 100% deterministic (which I'm not convinced of, especially seeing as how distributed and thus ordering-dependent it is), if it's the best in the world, how does that help you compete against it? In order to take advantage of its determinism you'd need to be better than it, and nothing else is.
> if it's the best in the world, how does that help you compete against it? In order to take advantage of its determinism you'd need to be better than it, and nothing else is. Play AlphaGo against itself. Go rarely has draws (requires Triple-Ko, a very, very rare position). Almost every game you play with AlphaZero vs AlphaZero will result in a winner-and-loser. You will quickly be able to characterize the positions…
But if you're not as least as good at it you won't even be able to get to those positions. You'll lose to it much earlier in much worse ways.
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Go does not have openings. There are 381 opening moves in Go, but really only 96 because of symmetry. 96 (opening moves) x 380 responses x 379 x 378 x 377 == ~2 Trillion positions after 5 ply. These 2-trillion positions will easily fit in a 16TB hard drive for $400. That's 8-bytes per position, so you probably can get there with more symmetries and some compression applied. ---------- You're thinking too much like…
You're thinking too much like a human. No, you're thinking too much like someone who understands chess but not Go. Suppose that we built an opening book with a trillion reasonable courses of action on it. Each one analyzed well. As you have discovered, you will only go a few ply into the game. And all of the positions that you will be directed towards will have only a small edge. Instead put a tiny fraction of the co…
fwiw, I'm with you. Excuse the gratuitous war analogy, but I suspect the approach of OP is akin to talking about which first 8 steps to take (north-east, SW, S) when going into battle -- it's such a small scope of the whole event that it's pointless, and talking about those first steps makes one seem naive to the actual holistic task
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Garry Kasparov might be a bad example, since his immediate reaction to losing to DeepBlue was to accuse the IBM programmers standing on stage next to him of cheating (through human intervention in DeepBlue's moves). But generally, humans have accepted computer supremacy in chess pretty well. Everyone realizes that a better chess-playing entity exists out there (in everyone's pocket, in fact). That doesn't make the co…
Talking with a co-worker the other day, I unthinkingly articulated a question that made us both stop and think a bit: "Could a human beat a computer at chess?" Like, now. 20 years after Kasparov. Could someone do it? The question feels daring somehow.
No. I doubt any human could even beat Stockfish running on a decent smartphone.
Big showcase computer-human matches ended in the mid-2000s. That's about the point when people realized it was hopeless to try to beat computers. The best you could do back then was draw, by playing extremely defensive "anti-computer" chess (positions where the pawns clog up the board, making short-term tactics useless, and making long-term strategy more important). But with modern engines (particularly AlphaZero, which understands positional chess much better than previous engines), even anti-computer chess doesn't work. Now, the top players actually rave about the games played by AlphaZero. Magnus Carlsen has said he wants to play like AlphaZero.
For a more quantitative comparison, these are the Elo scores of the top chess engines: https://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404/
A difference of 400 Elo points means that the better player should score 0.9 (where 1=win, 0.5=draw, 0=loss). The top computers are about 3600 Elo nowadays, compared to 2870 for the best human (Magnus). It's difficult to directly compare human and computer Elos, but this comparison is based on computer-human games played in the late 1990s to early 2000s. Still, computers are many hundreds of Elo points above the very best human players.
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#295This is about human drive and what's the point if the computer will always be better. In a way it makes the game a bit less fun because it somewhat kills the elusiveness of it all and the human aspect of men trying to surpass each others feats. If a man cannot beat a machine at a task where they are to compete directly, what's the point of trying at all if the machine will always be better?
a man also can't beat a car in a race, so what's the point of athletics?
If a car competes with a human on a track for the 100 meter dash then there is no point. There doesn't exist competition between cars and humans now on race tracks. The problem with AI gaming is that it does exist and they will face each other. It's about the efforts to have AI compete with humans.
When robots start to compete with humans at olympic events and beat humans at those event there will then be no point to those events.
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're thinking too much like a human. No, you're thinking too much like someone who understands chess but not Go. Suppose that we built an opening book with a trillion reasonable courses of action on it. Each one analyzed well. As you have discovered, you will only go a few ply into the game. And all of the positions that you will be directed towards will have only a small edge. Instead put a tiny fraction of the co…
> Instead put a tiny fraction of the computing power necessary to build this book into self-training. Do you believe that AlphaZero could continue to improve dramatically with another 6-months of training? Or if it can improve at another 6-months after that? At some point, the network will reach a local maximum, and it will be unable to improve beyond that. Characterizing AlphaZero's moves through big-data analysis i…
AlphaGo spent months training and continued to improve for the whole time. Its improvement slowed, just as it takes more work for humans to get from master to international master than it does from D-level player to C-level player. But it did not stop improving.
And then AlphaZero was better than AlphaGo after around a day of self-training.
Furthermore you are arguing for an opening book without considering how small an advantage an opening book would be. As I have said repeatedly, an opening book takes a tremendous amount of work to generate, will only go a few ply in, and the positions it directs you to will only be a tiny bit better.
Therefore for the foreseeable future, more training and better algorithms will produce better results than trying to create an opening book. Theoretically this could change. But that day will not be today or this year. I would be astonished if it happened during this decade. I would be surprised if it happened in a lifetime.
Your proposed approach is an excellent one for many games. But not for Go.
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if it's the best in the world, how does that help you compete against it? In order to take advantage of its determinism you'd need to be better than it, and nothing else is. Play AlphaGo against itself. Go rarely has draws (requires Triple-Ko, a very, very rare position). Almost every game you play with AlphaZero vs AlphaZero will result in a winner-and-loser. You will quickly be able to characterize the positions…
But if you're not as least as good at it you won't even be able to get to those positions. You'll lose to it much earlier in much worse ways.
The cyborg player will have access to the best publicly available software for preparation a year ahead of any competition.
For most of us, that means we'll all have the best verison of LeelaZero to grab from Github and use in our own personal studies. Which should still be super-human in terms of play.
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
Garry Kasparov might be a bad example, since his immediate reaction to losing to DeepBlue was to accuse the IBM programmers standing on stage next to him of cheating (through human intervention in DeepBlue's moves). But generally, humans have accepted computer supremacy in chess pretty well. Everyone realizes that a better chess-playing entity exists out there (in everyone's pocket, in fact). That doesn't make the co…
Talking with a co-worker the other day, I unthinkingly articulated a question that made us both stop and think a bit: "Could a human beat a computer at chess?" Like, now. 20 years after Kasparov. Could someone do it? The question feels daring somehow.
It's an open problem whether or not one of the sides in chess has a "winning strategy". That's a technical game-theoretical term. If white has a "winning strategy", that means there's a way for white to play such that black will inevitably lose. Likewise, if black has a "winning strategy", that means there's a way for black to play such that white will inevitably lose.
Exercise to the reader: prove that at most one color can have a winning strategy.
Since the problem is open, it could be that one side has a winning strategy. It's even theoretically possible there's a winning strategy simple enough for a human to follow. In which case, yes, a human could beat computers with 100% dominance--as long as the human is allowed to choose which color to play.
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#299This is about human drive and what's the point if the computer will always be better. In a way it makes the game a bit less fun because it somewhat kills the elusiveness of it all and the human aspect of men trying to surpass each others feats. If a man cannot beat a machine at a task where they are to compete directly, what's the point of trying at all if the machine will always be better?
I mean, computers are vastly better than humans at many things, I think you need to accept that and find the fun in sharing a game with a computer involved or with another human whose playing with another human in a like-for-like match with witt and skill being determining factors in the result, not a super advanced AI/algorithm.
I am coming from the perspective of Lee-Se-dol. He wanted to be the best man and highlight the achievement of men. Now there is no way it can be achieved. What's the point of the endeavor when humans can never win?
Broader question about AI research. Does it demoralize humanity?
Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Come on, none of us are really "human" anymore since the advent of cell phones. We all use our cyborg-capabilities to search the internet and fact-check ourselves every day. Programmers use stack-overflow to teach themselves programming and remember obscure details (using our cyborg capabilities to tag, search, and sift through information ever faster and faster). Sure and any of us could jump on a motorcycle and f…
> Won't the winner be the one who just takes AlphaGo's recommended move every time without changing anything? No. Consider this scheme. I take my copy of AlphaGo and for a full year, I'll build a database of all opening positions AlphaGo is willing to explore. I'll rank these opening positions from "best" (Black-wins with most consistency) to "worst" (White-wins with most consistency). I'll put all of this informatio…
Oh yeah? Well I'll just devote multiple computers and build an even bigger database with even more hardware and you'll never beat me, nyah nyah.
All you have done is establish a computational arms to see whose computing rig wins when you press the 'pick best move' button. You're not playing Go any more, you're playing Database Administrator.