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

AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 428 posts

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

#371

Post by School-Cotton »

goldenkey wrote: post #131
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very good question; I think "of course" is WAY overstating it. I'm interested to know what the GP means when they say "conscious".

Theres a huge difference between reactive and conscious. Conscious cant even be verified for humans other than ones' self. Theres absolutely no reason to believe cats are not conscious.

There's also no reason to believe, e.g., rocks are not conscious, if your position is that we have no idea what consciousness is or where it comes from.

If you take the view that consciousness somehow arises from the brain and neural connections (which is intuitively plausible, but I personally am skeptical), it stands to reason that other species with complex brains are conscious as well. Perhaps "less conscious" (if that means anything) in proportion to how much less complex their brains are.

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

#372

Post by zodiac »

quanticle wrote: post #166
studentrob wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll grant that for this very constrained problem ;-) I respect your work a lot. I've studied and used ML myself, including gensim, in industry. I've given nowhere near your level of contribution to society / the field. My opinion is true AI is quite a ways off. I haven't read anything from a ML researcher that says it isn't. Perhaps you weren't saying true AI is nearer.

I find it funny that whenever there's a case of computers being able to do something that they couldn't before, whether it's drive or beat humans at Go, the goalpost on what is "true AI" shifts to be something that computers can't do yet. So let me ask you this. What would you consider to be "true AI"? At what point are you willing to say, "Okay, that's it, computers are just plain smarter than we are?" Because, fran…

> the goalpost on what is "true AI" shifts to be something that computers can't do yet

while I agree that this does happen, I don't think it did in this case - that is, I don't remember anyone saying that they would take a computer beating the top human in Go as evidence of "true AI"

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

#373

Post by ChuckMcM »

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…

I don't think it is human prejudice, Deepmind can play Go and it cannot drive a car, Lee Sedol's brain can do both. Understanding the nature of cognition will open up new capabilities just as understanding the nature of genetics will open up new capabilities or understanding the nature of the cosmos Etc.

What is most interesting for me is that the nature of solving the problem "how do I win at Go?" is one that has not been, historically, one that computers could solve. Compute the ballistic trajectory of an artillery shell? Easy. Compute a winning strategy on the fly? Impossible. But by creating tools that allow computers to work on those problems we open up the things that can be improved and automated and that has historically improved the experience.

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

#375

Post by gyom »

1024core wrote: post #352
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.

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.

That's already a known method to transfer "knowledge" from one model to another. I should double-check before quoting a paper, but I think that this one talks about this (http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02531).

You train many models. Then you "distill" their predictions into one model by using the multiple predictions (from many models) as targets (for the single model trained afterwards).

You're right to point out that humans don't do that.

I think it would be "cheating" if you train BetaGo on AlphaGo, for the purposes for doing that experiment. The goal would be to have some kind of "clean room" where people fumble around.

Of course, you can also run the other experiment to see how fast you can bootstrap BetaGo from AlphaGo. That's also interesting.

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

#376

Post by ac29 »

tunichtgut wrote: post #208
pixl97 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we can't answer that question at this point. We do know that the system is more powerful than a human, so the question becomes "How much hardware can we take away and still be better than the best". That sets the hardware floor we have to reach. The current answer is, still a long way off. With massive forecasts in GPU power over the next few years it may be reasonable for people to have desktops in their home…

I think this is a good guess. 280 GPUs in a single Desktop. It will take at least 10 years. Perhaps longer given the restrictions (and huge problems) in further down scaling of the known silicon technology. GPUs are now at 28nm and the newest Intel CPUs on 14nm.

NVIDIA is projecting 5-10x gains in Deep Learning performance out of their next generation hardware (Pascal) [1]. Might be sooner than you think.

[1] http://techreport.com/news/27978/nvidia-pascal-to-feature-mi...

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

#377

Post by nostrademons »

latentspace wrote: post #253
argonaut wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual quote: "Sussman told Minsky that he was using a certain randomizing technique in his program because he didn't want the machine to have any preconceived notions" makes no indication it was a neural net ;)

Not according to the jargon file http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/koans.html#id3141241

Both the Jargon file quote and a citation from a published book (which has the quote the grandparent posted) are listed on the Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_koan

Eric Raymond kinda butchered the Jargon File when he took over maintenance, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of the text there is invented. The original Jargon File does not contain any koans:

http://www.dourish.com/goodies/jargon.html

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

#378

Post by nevada_smith »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #299
Eliezer wrote: post #79

My (long) commentary here: https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154018209759228 Sample: At this point it seems likely that Sedol is actually far outclassed by a superhuman player. The suspicion is that since AlphaGo plays purely for probability of long-term victory rather than playing for points, the fight against Sedol generates boards that can falsely appear to a human to be balanced even as Sedol's probabili…

>> But Go is rich enough to demonstrate strong cognitive uncontainability on a small scale. In a rich and complicated domain whose rules aren't fully known, we should expect even more magic from superhuman reasoning - solutions that are better than the best solution we could imagine, operating by causal pathways we wouldn't be able to foresee even if we were told the AI's exact actions. Hang on. Where are we going to…

This is not the final frontier, far from it, in truth. Go is very much like Chess, with an overshadowing branching factor. AI is yet to conquer Bridge. The first time we see a bot false-card will be the day when AI arrives. What we see now however, is still just searches and pattern matches...

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

#379

Post by daveguy »

atemerev wrote: post #203
kleiba wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean, in addition to the big changes of the last few decades?

I mean, like actually passing the Turing test.

Turing test isn't just a natural language problem. It is far more complex and requires context awareness and emotional intelligence far beyond where we are currently. Language recognition has been at the forefront of research for at least 30 years and it has improved significantly. However, the turing test aspect has only minimally improved.

Edit: iopq, pretending to be a dumb human (or one with a language barrier) is cheating for a headline. A real Turing test would require a computer imitate a human for longer than 5 minutes (although currently that is plenty of time) and without any caveats or limitations on the computer's skill.

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

#380

Post by goldenkey »

School-Cotton wrote: post #371
goldenkey wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theres a huge difference between reactive and conscious. Conscious cant even be verified for humans other than ones' self. Theres absolutely no reason to believe cats are not conscious.

There's also no reason to believe, e.g., rocks are not conscious, if your position is that we have no idea what consciousness is or where it comes from. If you take the view that consciousness somehow arises from the brain and neural connections (which is intuitively plausible, but I personally am skeptical), it stands to reason that other species with complex brains are conscious as well. Perhaps "less conscious" (i…

It doesn't make sense to have a scale of consciousness. The argument that consciousness is a manifestation of a complex brain is rather weak. Either an organism knows about self, and therefore tries to preserve self. Or it doesn't. I don't see how an in between exists.
Post reply on HN