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

AlphaGo's next move

deepmind.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 179 posts

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#31

Post by mcintyre1994 »

computerex wrote: post #21
blazespin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit hyperbolic. Go at it's heart is a pretty basic game, just tricky combinatorics. The fact that you can do unsupervised learning simplifies it even more. I think there are much better true indicators, such as better translation, speech to text, auto driving, etc.

I think you are being hyperbolic here. Go is in a lot of respect much more challenging than machine translation, speech to text and auto-driving. All of the latter problems you described have had solutions for decades whereas Alpha Go is literally state of the art. It even uses proprietary hardware (TPU's) and was essentially engineered by one if not the most elite ML lab in the world. Their solution consists of an e…

I'm not disagreeing because I don't know how to even start comparing those challenges to Go, but just a comment - it's interesting that you chose areas where Google's elite ML teams are state of the art or close to it and where they're probably using TPUs or will be soon.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#32

Post by nightcracker »

namarie wrote: post #24
binarymax wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and physical prowess was never dominated by humans anyway. We are surrounded by creatures which can fly and swim and sprint far better than any human ever could. But our minds is what separates us from the beasts. We've never been second place in the thought competition.

Aren't we actually better at endurance running than any other animal?

Land animal, I believe so, yes.

But an albatros would cover much more ground much more efficiently than us.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#33

Post by tambourine_man »

namarie wrote: post #24
binarymax wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and physical prowess was never dominated by humans anyway. We are surrounded by creatures which can fly and swim and sprint far better than any human ever could. But our minds is what separates us from the beasts. We've never been second place in the thought competition.

Aren't we actually better at endurance running than any other animal?

Seems sled dogs beat us on this one:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=HDG4GSypcIE

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#34

Post by Tar90 »

panic wrote: post #20
gabrielgoh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in a way, life is just a simple game with tricky combinatorics, and fairly trivial to attack with the tools of unsupervised learning.

Life isn't simple in the way these games are. The choices you have in life aren't clear, and neither is what will happen once you make them.

Plus, these games are deterministic, whereas everything in life is a stochastic process.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#35

Post by [deleted] »

computerex wrote: post #21
blazespin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit hyperbolic. Go at it's heart is a pretty basic game, just tricky combinatorics. The fact that you can do unsupervised learning simplifies it even more. I think there are much better true indicators, such as better translation, speech to text, auto driving, etc.

I think you are being hyperbolic here. Go is in a lot of respect much more challenging than machine translation, speech to text and auto-driving. All of the latter problems you described have had solutions for decades whereas Alpha Go is literally state of the art. It even uses proprietary hardware (TPU's) and was essentially engineered by one if not the most elite ML lab in the world. Their solution consists of an e…

[deleted]

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#37

Post by wiz21c »

The gift Google makes to the community (some games AlphaGo,played ) is nothing. The super tricky thing with neural networks is that you can't reverse engineer them. Once the information is coded into the parameters, you can't base anything useful on them. So it's a super good intellectual property protection... Therefore one more nail in the coffin of knowledge sharing as we know it...

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#38

Post by Cybiote »

computerex wrote: post #21
blazespin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit hyperbolic. Go at it's heart is a pretty basic game, just tricky combinatorics. The fact that you can do unsupervised learning simplifies it even more. I think there are much better true indicators, such as better translation, speech to text, auto driving, etc.

I think you are being hyperbolic here. Go is in a lot of respect much more challenging than machine translation, speech to text and auto-driving. All of the latter problems you described have had solutions for decades whereas Alpha Go is literally state of the art. It even uses proprietary hardware (TPU's) and was essentially engineered by one if not the most elite ML lab in the world. Their solution consists of an e…

I agree, Go is a challenging game for computers but even more so for humans. However, for computers, Go is not more challenging than translation, speech to text or driving or understanding a comic book. The progression of superhuman play in famous board games has gone as checker->chess-> go. The more a game relies on memory,tactics and evaluation speed, the quicker it falls. In terms of commonly played perfect information games, Go is most difficult both from having a large branching factor and no simple evaluation heuristic. In each of these, before there was superhuman play, there was super amateur human play for decades (including in Go).

Translation still has many failure cases. Speech to text cannot yet handle intonation and auto-driving cannot yet handle driving in places like India. And reading then summarizing a page of a comic book while walking across a room is currently impossible.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#39

Post by yeukhon »

wiz21c wrote: post #37

The gift Google makes to the community (some games AlphaGo,played ) is nothing. The super tricky thing with neural networks is that you can't reverse engineer them. Once the information is coded into the parameters, you can't base anything useful on them. So it's a super good intellectual property protection... Therefore one more nail in the coffin of knowledge sharing as we know it...

Most importanly, it is almost inevitable they must run on a fam of computers basically mean it becomes a service. Can we ever create a robot who can self-learn but with the super brain power locally without having to call a service for an answer?

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#40

Post by Wildgoose »

namarie wrote: post #26
dingledog wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, too, remember this. I'm very close to the chess engine scene, and while people (such as replies to this thread) have tried to argue that engine development has not taken away from chess, I'm afraid their misguided. Anybody paying attention to top level chess knows that it has turned into mind bogglingly boring forced draw lines due to engine analysis. I've seen super GMs argue that analysis is so deep now that "e4…

Actually, draws are almost impossible in Go. I also doubt that pros will try to memorize openings like chess players would; they're very different games and this sort of opening memorization is way more important and efficient in chess than in go.

Not true. If komi (the extra points given to White for going second) doesn't include an extra half point then draws are perfectly possible. One of my friends managed to get two jigo games (draws) out of the three games he played at a recent Tournament.
Post reply on HN