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

Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

gogameguru.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 471 posts

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#371

Post by CydeWeys »

mizzao wrote: post #194

Another way to look at this is just how efficient the human brain is for the same amount of computation. On one hand, we have racks of servers (1920 CPUs and 280 GPUs) [1] using megawatts (gigawatts?) of power, and on the other hand we have a person eating food and using about 100W of power (when physically at rest), of which about 20W is used by the brain. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/216…

People are focusing way too much on the current hardware that AlphaGo happens to be running on.

AlphaGo is still a very new program (two years since inception). It will get significantly better with more training, or, equivalently, it will stay at the same strength while running on much less hardware.

Don't read too much into what one particular snapshot in its development cycle looks like. Humanity has had hundreds of millions of years to maximize the efficiency of the brain. AlphaGo has had two years. It's not a fair comparison, and more importantly, it's not instructive as to what the future potential of AI algorithms looks like.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#372

Post by nightpool »

jkyle wrote: post #267
SilasX wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OT: What's with using monotype for quotes? That's breaks line wrapping and makes it hard to read on mobile or small screens. I don't get why people do it.

Looks good in desktop browsers.

not really: http://i.imgur.com/uxqERat.png (you have to be very careful about what indentation level you're at, how long your lines are, etc, etc, things that people just don't do most of the time)

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#373

Post by ehsanu1 »

eru wrote: post #351
Artoemius wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think (or at least hope) most of the downvotes have nothing to do with congratulations, and only refer to the part where AI is called "an amoral field of study that can potentially delegitimize everything that currently makes humans unique and extraordinary". That line of reasoning would be worth a laugh, if it wasn't so widespread in the general population.

Perhaps still better than my friend, who thinks suffering is what makes humans special. Discussions with him are, well, interesting.

Maybe introduce your friend to buddhist ideas of ending suffering via meditation. Might be another interesting discussion.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#374

Post by ehsanu1 »

hendekagon wrote: post #183
Angostura wrote: post #146

Bizarre. I felt a palpable sense of relief when I read this. Silly meat-brain that I am.

Living flesh is not meat. Meat is what we call dead flesh. A living brain is made of neural nano-processors.

"They're made out of meat": http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#375

Post by CydeWeys »

jules wrote: post #324
Houshalter wrote: post #308

We were discussing the probability that Sedol would win this game. Everyone, including me, bet 90% that no human would ever win again, let alone this specific game: http://predictionbook.com/predictions/177592 I tried to estimate it mathematically. Using a uniform distribution across possible win rates, then updating the probability of different win rates with bayes rule. You can do that with Laplace's law of success…

The argument that AI is either much better or much worse does not apply here. It's not an accident that they chose this point in time to play against Lee Sedol instead of 10 years ago or 10 years in the future. They chose this point in time because they thought that they have a reasonable chance of winning. Also, he won with white but he will play with black next time, so playing the same sequence of moves can't happ…

> It's not an accident that they chose this point in time to play against Lee Sedol instead of 10 years ago or 10 years in the future. They chose this point in time because they thought that they have a reasonable chance of winning.

Most importantly, they chose this point in time because they know that there are several other AI research teams that are also on the right track (including at Facebook). Like circumnavigating the globe or landing on the Moon, 90% of the benefit of it is lost if someone else does it before you. So you don't wait for 100% certainty of winning -- you are maximizing for the chance of winning first, not winning for certain.

Given that, it seems reasonable that they would go after Lee Sedol when they were sure they were better than him, but not too much better than him. So a non-5-0 outcome is, in hindsight, not horribly surprising.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#376

Post by CydeWeys »

alanfalcon wrote: post #112
nitrobeast wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AlphaGo was in over time in game 2.

To add to this, it seemed to have no problem makkng moves wothin the 60 second window (at that lte tage of the game).

I suspect that in almost all cases it has already converged on a move well before sixty seconds, and so if forced by time pressure to choose a move before it has achieved the confidence it's looking for, it will probably still do the right thing most of the time (especially in the endgame, when the branching factor is cut down enormously). It just uses additional time because it has it. I would love to see a graph of AlphaGo's thinking showing certainty of time, and how long it was taking to come up with the move it ultimately ended up playing, and how that certainty evolved over its thinking period.

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#379

Post by cooper12 »

fdej wrote: post #200
lifthrasiir wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I.e. Something like [1] for every move. I was a bit disappointed to learn that such table is only available for that particluar move at the first reading. [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7587/fig_tab/natu...

Off-topic: we (the human species) have built an AI that can master the game of Go, but we don't yet have the intelligence to publish charts correctly on the web. That blur of a JPG is half a megabyte!

Yeah honestly that would be much better presented as an SVG since its mostly solid colors and geometric shapes. Every browsers supports them, and all the big image editors as well; the trouble is that the rest of our software and culture hasn't caught on. Why am I taking bitmap screenshots of websites when they're almost completely text? We need to start building a tools ecosystem around vector graphics. An extra bonus would be a machine-readable representation of the board as well. We live in a digital age, but its almost like we're cavemen still dealing with the modern equivalent of analog formats. (And at least analog has fidelity)

Re: Lee Sedol Beats AlphaGo in Game 4

#380

Post by CydeWeys »

versteegen wrote: post #177
apetresc wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demis clarified what he meant by that in a subsequent tweet – it wasn't that AlphaGo re-evaluated move 79, it's that the winrate only plummeted after move 87, which was beyond the point of no return: https://twitter.com/demishassabis/status/708934687926804482

But he called move 79 a mistake. So did he learn from a human commentator that it was a mistake, or was that AlphaGo's assessment? Because it is actually trivial in MCTS to reevaluate moves already taken once you have a better assessment of the positions that follow it.

I would love to hear from the team for sure, but I suspect that they have, by now, fed the game state as of move 78 into AlphaGo, had it look exhaustively at possibilities (way more than in the few minutes it took during the match), and determined that in hindsight move 79 was indeed not an optimal response.
Post reply on HN