AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5 • Hacker News Board

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#421

Post by netheril96 » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

jonahx wrote: post #364

fhe wrote: post #239

As someone who studied AI in college and am a reasonably good amateur player, I have been following the matches between Lee and AlphaGo. AlphaGo plays some unusual moves that go clearly against any classically trained Go players. Moves that simply don't quite fit into the current theories of Go playing, and the world's top players are struggling to explain what's the purpose/strategy behind them. I've been giving it…

> I've been giving it some thought. When I was learning to play Go as a teenager in China, I followed a fairly standard, classical learning path. First I learned the rules, then progressively I learn the more abstract theories and tactics. Many of these theories, as I see them now, draw analogies from the physical world, and are used as tools to hide the underlying complexity (chunking), and enable the players to thi…

> all are based on our peculiarly effective

They are peculiarly effective only because of lack of comparison. Humans have been the most intelligent species on this planet for millennia, where no other species come even close. We don't know how ineffective those strategies are seen by a more advanced species. Well, until now.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#422

Post by EGreg » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 4:56 PM UTC

Someone here said an interesting thing. Perhaps the next AI challenge would be to see whether AI running on weaker machines can beat AI of yesterday on stronger machines. And this test can be automated to find even better algorithms. Like can Rybka running on an iPhone today beat Fritz running on a distributed supercomputer? Or thinking for 2 seconds rather than 2 minutes, on the same computer?

There is something unnerving about a computer that can answer in 0.01 seconds and still have the move be better than any human would come up with in an hour. At that point a robot playing simulatenous bullet chess would wipe the floor with a row of grandmasters, beating them all without exception.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#423

Post by nbouscal » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

jtolmar wrote: post #346

megalodon wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think an important point was brought up by the Google engineer in the beginning of the game: Humans usually consider moves that put them ahead by a greater margin and base their strategies on that, while computers don't have that bias.

Building on that, I suspect that if AlphaGo thinks it has a 100% chance of winning with any of several moves, it has no way of distinguishing between them and chooses effectively at random. The longer that goes on - and once it hits 100% chance of winning, it will be that way for the rest of the game - the more chances it has to pick bad moves. As long as the move isn't bad enough to ruin its 100% chance of winning,…

I doubt the value network ever outputs a literal 100% chance of winning, it would at most be a lot of nines.

Even if it did output an actual 100% chance, AlphaGo would still end up picking moves favored by the policy network, so it would probably just revert to playing like it predicts a human pro would.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#424

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

Jobbers wrote: post #355

hitekker wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to thank you for this comment. It's this kind of subtle, low-key, informed speculation that generates good, hard sci-fi concepts, which are absolutely relevant to my WIP novel. "oh what if the machine suddenly came alive!?" has been done 1000 times. But such concepts like: a computer can detect and act patterns which we cannot, in ways that are almost, if not possibly intelligence, are magnitudes more believab…

Is it about a tyrannical super-AI that maintains power over the human race by strategically releasing butterflies into the wild at specific times and locations?

[deleted]

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#425

Post by iopq » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #256

avar wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Turing test is a really narrow "can you act like a human" test of intelligence, not a general intelligence test.

That's a point of concern for using the Turing Test to assess the intelligence of a computer, but that's only because the computer has to also be trained to expose human-like features that are considered to be unintelligent. But on one hand, in order to have a shot at passing the Turing Test, a computer has to first be able to understand and speak human language. And that's pretty damn hard actually. Yes we can deplo…

Passing the Turing test is not exciting anymore. Computers that act like retards already "passed it".

"im so bored this test sux", "i dunno wat are you asking me", "what if ur a bot lol"

AND THEN I WOULDN'T ACTUALLY KNOW because some people ARE this stupid

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#426

Post by justicezyx » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 5:00 PM UTC

ig1 wrote: post #399

1024core wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AlphaGo is essentially built on the work that IBM did on TD-Gammon (a reinforcement learning backgammon player) in the 90s. Citation needed.

And you'll find it in the AlphaGo paper. It's not a contentious claim.

Citation still needed.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#427

Post by davesque » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 5:01 PM UTC

Cookingboy wrote: post #116

Someone somewhere asked why a lot of people in the Go community is taking this in a somewhat hard way, here is my hypothesis: Go, unlike Chess, has deep mytho attached to it. Throughout the history of many Asian countries it's seen as the ultimate abstract strategy game that deeply relies on players' intuition, personality, worldview. The best players are not described as "smart", they are described as "wise". I thin…

"Go, unlike Chess, has deep mytho attached to it."

While I'm not able to comment on the length/depth of history of chess vs. go, the above statement seems foolish. Chess also has a lot of mythology and mystique attached to it. Champion chess players (perhaps more so a decade or two or three ago) are also treated with a respect that is not casual.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#428

Post by netheril96 » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 5:01 PM UTC

astazangasta wrote: post #338

fhe wrote: post #239

As someone who studied AI in college and am a reasonably good amateur player, I have been following the matches between Lee and AlphaGo. AlphaGo plays some unusual moves that go clearly against any classically trained Go players. Moves that simply don't quite fit into the current theories of Go playing, and the world's top players are struggling to explain what's the purpose/strategy behind them. I've been giving it…

>It's like another intelligent species opening up a new way of looking at the world (at least for this very specific domain). and much to our surprise, it's a new way that's more powerful than ours. It's not like this at all; let's not do this sort of thing. Humans are inveterate myth makers (viz. your description of how people conceive the Go board as army units), and our impositions on the world are easily confused…

> they don't help US learn, they require us to put our faith in machines that are trained to operate in ways that are resistant to inspection.

Human intuition and to certain extent, creativity are like this as well.

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#429

Post by btilly » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 5:02 PM UTC

angli wrote: post #403

JabavuAdams wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this happen with "modern tennis" versus how I was taught to play.

This is interesting. Could you (or someone else whose had this experience) elaborate?

Here are three examples for you.

Swimming. It used to be that swimmers were supposed to be streamlined and avoid bulky muscles. Then a weightlifter decided he wanted to swim. Swimmers today all lift weights.

Programming. It used to be that people built programs in a very top down, heavily planned way. Think waterfall. We now understand that a highly iterative process is more appropriate in most areas of programming.

Expert systems. It used to be that we would develop expert systems (machine translation, competitive games, etc) through building large sets of explicit rules based on what human experts thought would work. Today we start with simple systems, large data sets, and use a variety of machine learning algorithms to let the program figure out its own rules. (One of the giant turning points there was when Google Translate completely demolished all existing translation software.)

Re: AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

#430

Post by jonahx » Thu, Mar 10, 2016, 5:05 PM UTC

netheril96 wrote: post #421

jonahx wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've been giving it some thought. When I was learning to play Go as a teenager in China, I followed a fairly standard, classical learning path. First I learned the rules, then progressively I learn the more abstract theories and tactics. Many of these theories, as I see them now, draw analogies from the physical world, and are used as tools to hide the underlying complexity (chunking), and enable the players to thi…

> all are based on our peculiarly effective They are peculiarly effective only because of lack of comparison. Humans have been the most intelligent species on this planet for millennia, where no other species come even close. We don't know how ineffective those strategies are seen by a more advanced species. Well, until now.

This is a good point. I was coming from the point of view that we've had powerful computers for a while, and yet humans were still dominating them, at least until recently, in games like Go, poker, and many visual and language tasks.

Of course, the counterpoint could be that it's only the case because humans, with their laughable reasoning abilities, are the ones programming those computers.