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

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

#361

Post by asmyers » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:43 PM UTC

bricemo wrote: post #343

asmyers wrote: post #340

Does anyone know if the AlphaGo team is saving the probability of winning assignments that AlphaGo gave its moves? It would be fascinating to see how early AlphaGo assigned very high probability of it winning. It would also be interesting to see if there were particular moves which changed this assignment a lot. For instance, are there moves that Lee Sedol made for which the win probability is very different for the…

In the introduction to the third match, the project lead talked about how Alphago evaluated the controversial 37th move in the second match. Apparently the policy network decided that it had a one in 10,000 chance of a human making that move, But the value network overrode this. So it seems like they are recording this kind of data and looking at it in cases where it's interesting.

Thanks, I'm only just watching match 2 and hadn't seen that. I really hope they publish this data. It would be incredibly interesting to construct a "review of the game by AlphaGo" from this data.

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

#362

Post by baq » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

alextgordon wrote: post #104

pushrax wrote: post #31

It's important to remember that this is an accomplishment of humanity, not a defeat. By constructing this AI, we are simply creating another tool for advancing our state of being. (or something like that)

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…

and what is our purpose if there are no computers at all? you can keep believing whatever you believe, computers being good at things change nothing.

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

#363

Post by inopinatus » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:53 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.

I suspect you will only be satisfied when AIs play each other at an incomprehensible game of their own devising.

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

#364

Post by skarist » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

We are indeed witnessing and living a historic moment. It is difficult not to feel awestruck. Likewise, it is difficult not to feel awestruck at how a wet 1.5 kg clump of carbon-based material (e.g. Lee Sedol brain) can achieve this level of mastery of a board game, that it takes such an insane amount of computing power to beat it. So, finally we do have a measure of the computing power required to play Go at the professional level. And it is immense, or to apply a very crude approximation based on Moore's law, it requires about 4096 times more computing power to play Go at the professional level than it does to play chess. Ok, this approx may be a bit crude :)

But maybe this is all just human prejudice... i.e. what this really goes to show is that in the final analysis all board games we humans have inveted and played are "trival", i.e. they are all just like tic-tac-toe just with a varying degree of complexity.

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

#365

Post by elsewhen » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 6:57 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…

>This doesn't work for songs

don't you think that a team trying to build this could provide a free offering where users get free algo-generated music in return for 1-10 voting on a song-by-song basis. given enough time and votes, i suspect that the algo could get remarkably good at delivering satisfaction.

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

#366

Post by TheRealPomax » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 7:00 PM UTC

awwducks wrote: post #12

Perhaps the last big question was whether AlphaGo could play ko positions. AlphaGo played quite well in that ko fight and furthermore, even played away from the ko fight allowing Lee Sedol to play twice in the area. I definitely did not expect that. Major credit to Lee Sedol for toughing that out and playing as long as he did. It was dramatic to watch as he played a bunch of his moves with only 1 or 2 seconds left on…

When you have a minute, even if you already know your move, you take the rest of the time to read the plays. You don't play your stone until there's only 1 or 2 seconds left, unless the play is so trivial that you need to see your opponent's play in order to continue reading. Every time Sedol played with 1 or 2 seconds left, his rush was only to get the stone on the board, not because he suddenly knew what to play.

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

#367

Post by kotach » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 7:03 PM UTC

skarist wrote: post #364

We are indeed witnessing and living a historic moment. It is difficult not to feel awestruck. Likewise, it is difficult not to feel awestruck at how a wet 1.5 kg clump of carbon-based material (e.g. Lee Sedol brain) can achieve this level of mastery of a board game, that it takes such an insane amount of computing power to beat it. So, finally we do have a measure of the computing power required to play Go at the pro…

Chess can be played godlike on a smartphone. Result of years of refining algorithms.

Same could probably be accomplished with Go.

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

#368

Post by School-Cotton » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 7:14 PM UTC

21 wrote: post #122

School-Cotton wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, a cat is not conscious. How do you know?

I'm not an expert in this domain, but I think it's pretty much scientific consensus that this is the case. Now experts can discuss details or semantics, but do you truly suggest cats might be conscious?

I'm not an expert either, but my understanding is that "consciousness" is still so poorly understood that it's more the realm of philosophy than science.

In particular, we all know that we're conscious, but can't really explain what that means.

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

#369

Post by School-Cotton » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 7:14 PM UTC

haliax wrote: post #238

tim333 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cat's are obviously conscious in the sense of the dictionary definition "aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake." Unless you knock one out or similar. Arguing they are not conscious in the sense of a more obscure definition is a bit pointless unless you specify your definition.

Cats aren't aware of their surroundings? I'm a bit confused what you mean here. Surely chasing a mouse counts as both awareness and responding?

You got his point backwards.

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

#370

Post by anonaoeu » Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 7:16 PM UTC

argonaut wrote: post #247

anonaoeu wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an AI has any motivation at all, say, to make paperclips as efficiently as possible, then any threat to its existence is a threat to its objective function - namely, to create paperclips. A hyper-intelligent entity who is instructed to optimize for paperclips created will therefore proactively remove threats to its existence (i.e. its paperclip-creating functionality) and might possibly turn the entire solar syste…

Such an entity would not be hyper-intelligent. It would be idiotic. One huge hole for me in the paperclip argument is that an AI capable of that kind of power would not be stupid enough to misinterpret a command - it would be intelligent enough to infer human desires.

Sure it would. It just wouldn't be friendly to you.