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

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

#351

Post by nardi » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:18 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #151

alextgordon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is our purpose if computers can do everything better than us? It feels like computers have taken one aspect of humanness: logic. Computers could do arithmetic, do algebra, play chess, and now they can play go. It hurts because logic is usually thought to be one of the highest of human characteristics. Yes computers might never be able to replicate emotion, but even dogs have that. There's still some aspects we h…

Reading this thread, I believe there's one aspect not discussed: in a battle between man and machine, it's debatable who wins and depends on the domain, but a man-machine combination always wins over both. On emotions, that's a characteristic of life. With the consciousness we possess, without emotions we would quickly realize that life isn't worth living. I doubt that a "true AI", one with consciousness, will want t…

It's not even close to raw search over the whole move space. AlphaGo searches fewer moves than Deep Junior did, and Go is a much larger game. Your premise is just wrong. AlphaGo is precisely so impressive because it operates much like a human does.

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

#352

Post by 1024core » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:19 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.

What if the "betaGo" played just AlphaGo, and learned from its games?

BTW: even humans don't just randomly pick up the game. They have teachers, who teach them the tricks of the trade and monitor their games.

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

#353

Post by pmoriarty » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:19 PM UTC

GolDDranks wrote: post #176

jules wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I play chess against a computer I can see very easily that I'm not winning.

But that is most likely be because of the structure of Chess. The evaluation of single board position is more "linear" and certainly easier than in Go. If the utility function is about winning, going though easily-evalutable board positions might be the straightforward route. If the utility function is to win while minimizing your estimate of of you losing, you might see different results. Plus if you know that you a…

It would be interesting to see how computers fare against humans on a 19x19 chess board, and how easily a human could evaluate such a board.

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

#354

Post by emcq » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:26 PM UTC

hughperkins wrote: post #197

chubot wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think it's accurate to say that driving a car is harder in some sense than playing Go, based on the fact that the AI for Go came first. A lot of people have been working on self-driving cars for a long time now, and it's very monetizable, unlike Go.

To be fair, you're probably not going to drive around with 180GPUs in your trunk...

You're absolutely right. The power budget for these cars is more like 30 watts. A Tesla driving is around 240 watts per km or 14kw per hour at 60kmph. If you're okay reducing your range but half you could get a dozen beefy GPUs if the battery can support that kind of extended load.

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

#355

Post by ganwar » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

Incredible news. We have all heard all of the positive coverage and how tremendous it is. What I find interesting is that how come nobody is talking about the potential of AlphaGo as a war strategizing AI?

If you provide terrain(elevation etc.) information, AlphaGo can be used to corner opponents into an area surrounded by mountains where AlphaGo is sitting on the mountains. We all know what happens after that.

Don't want to kill the party but I am completely surprised with the lack of chatter in this direction.

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

#356

Post by ganwar » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:35 PM UTC

bronz wrote: post #52

Once again, I am so glad that I caught this on the live-stream because it will be in the history books. The implications of these games are absolutely tremendous. Consider GO: it is a game of sophisticated intuition. We have arguably created something that beats the human brain in its own arena, although the brain and AlphaGO do not use the same underlying mechanisms. And this is the supervised model. Once unsupervis…

Incredible news. We have all heard all of the positive coverage and how tremendous it is. What I find interesting is that how come nobody is talking about the potential of AlphaGo as a war strategizing AI?

If you provide terrain(elevation etc.) information, AlphaGo can be used to corner opponents into an area surrounded by mountains where AlphaGo is sitting on the mountains. We all know what happens after that.

Don't want to kill the party but I am completely surprised with the lack of chatter in this direction.

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

#357

Post by V-2 » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:35 PM UTC

radicalbyte wrote: post #91

awwducks wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Human strength is also "built on human strength" so I don't see the problem? :)

Well, yes, but it's still humans standing on the shoulders of other humans. Even though human players do memorize opening books, it stays in the family so to speak. Meanwhile a human player facing an AI engine is battling both the AI, and great human players of the past (who invented the openings).

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

#358

Post by jcyw » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:37 PM UTC

We had Godel on the limitation of logic and Turing on the limitation of computation. I think AI will only change the way human calls intelligence. We used to call people who can mentally calculate large numbers genius. Lots of that has to be re-defined.

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

#359

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:37 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.

[deleted]

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

#360

Post by morgante » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:39 PM UTC

fizx wrote: post #294

nathan_f77 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computers will be able to compose symphonies very soon. If DeepMind started working on this problem, I am sure that they would succeed. At least, we would have some innovative mashups of Beethoven, Mozart and Tchaikovsky. But training a powerful AI on a massive dataset of all popular and classical music should produce some extraordinary results. Especially if the dataset was given as MIDI with separate instrument tra…

Composing an amazing symphony is probably about as hard as being the best go player in the world. But I think we're much further away than you think. AlphaGo needed a training set of perhaps a billion games to be as good as it is. The dataset of master Go games is perhaps a million games. So AlphaGo played at tons of games against a half-trained version of itself to reach the billion game mark. This doesn't work for…

> Perhaps the Matrix wasn't using the humans for power, but rather the computers wanted to get good at writing music, so they gave each human in it slightly different music and watched their emotional responses.

This is possibly my favorite comment of the whole thread.

It's a super interesting idea and could make for some fascinating science fiction. Poorly programmed AI might not wipe out humanity, because it still needs humans to evaluate its fitness function.