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

Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

en.yna.co.kr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 554 posts

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#441

Post by Raidion »

fiatjaf wrote: post #415
olalonde wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chess engines have been defeating humans for 20+ years (and are overwhelmingly stronger for a long time), but that hasn't diminished the interest in competitive chess Is that true? I feel like chess was a bigger deal in the past. Among my peers, poker and computer games seem a lot more popular.

Well, I was never a grandmaster, but my amateur interest in Chess was killed completely after I realized it was impossible to beat computers. Then I switched to Go... and now I don't have a game to play anymore.

This seems weird, I don't know you would want to link your enjoyment with a game to it's unsolvability.

Like don't you enjoy a game to enjoy a game? You can't beat Carlsen either, but you enjoyed the game at your level. Now computers are Carlsen +1, but how you enjoy the game shouldn't be affected. Especially since deep blue won in '97 and the game is still very alive and well, it hasn't been killed by computers but enhanced. Coupled with the multitude of good chess sites and resources out there, it's a better time than ever to enjoy the game.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#442

Post by naniwaduni »

Icathian wrote: post #413
falcrist wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans can and are absorbing some of what the machine has demonstrated. I think Kasparov has it right when he says that the best player isn't a human or a machine, but a human using a machine as a tool. The machine can help the player optimize and reduce mistakes, but machines don't yet know how to ask questions and explore in the same way. Maybe they never will.

There's a name for this approach, they call human-AI teams "centaurs". It's a fascinating concept. I am deeply curious if eventually that will be outstripped by pure AI too. I believe so.

Optimal strategy for human-AI teams has been really close "defer to the computer for every move" for a while now. They're only interesting because they're adversarial.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#443

Post by FartyMcFarter »

invalidOrTaken wrote: post #164
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Garry Kasparov might be a bad example, since his immediate reaction to losing to DeepBlue was to accuse the IBM programmers standing on stage next to him of cheating (through human intervention in DeepBlue's moves). But generally, humans have accepted computer supremacy in chess pretty well. Everyone realizes that a better chess-playing entity exists out there (in everyone's pocket, in fact). That doesn't make the co…

Talking with a co-worker the other day, I unthinkingly articulated a question that made us both stop and think a bit: "Could a human beat a computer at chess?" Like, now. 20 years after Kasparov. Could someone do it? The question feels daring somehow.

> "Could a human beat a computer at chess?"

If you start from a winning position, even something as stupid as a random-mover will eventually play a perfect sequence of moves and win, given enough attempts.

However humans are not very good at being random, so this may not apply :)

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#444

Post by oxplot »

fooxbar wrote: post #403
oxplot wrote: post #394

I personally lost interest in playing games that computers can play better than me or could in near future (I used to play video games and chess quite a bit). These days, I enjoy playing games that involve human interaction and improvisation, more than logical thinking and strategy. Every time I find myself in presence of a game like Cluedo, I can't shake off the thought that I could write a program in one hour to be…

Are there any games computers can't beat us at? Last I heard OpenAI destroyed professional Dota players.

Social games yes. For example, charades requires conversion of meaning to human movements. It's not to say it can't be done at the moment, but it's not something you would easily come across or that would provide the same experience as if you were playing with other people who are physically present. If you talk about actual physical robot doing the moves in front of you, then I'd say it's either cutting edge or not possible right now.

And it's certainly not accessible either way. With chess, and other games, you can simply download an app on your phone which you'll never be able to win against.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#445

Post by needToCrust »

Zaak wrote: post #430
needToCrust wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ai won’t, but a machine with true intelligence will. That was the point of talking about ai needing to be i.

So you're defining "AI" to be anything that we can currently program a computer to do, and "I" to be anything we can't yet? That doesn't seem like a useful distinction to me. Unless you're using "I" to mean general (artificial) intelligence, in which case you should probably use the more well-known term.

No, please don’t straw man my point. I’ll assume you know what ai is and that you understand there is a huge difference between that and human intelligence. I am arguing that ai will never be able to DM a D&D game. For that, a computer will need human intelligence.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#446

Post by filleokus »

bhouston wrote: post #389
breatheoften wrote: post #374

I sympathize. It used to be that you might be able to believe that there is some kind of art behind go, some sort of abstract beauty to it, and that the pursuit of this beauty is the path to being good at go ... But the defeat of the tactics born from this mindset by MCTS at least for now lay bare the fact that the path to being good at go is actually to probabilistically sample the phase space of the game and perfor…

And this will happen to all of humanness in time. Everything we think is unique about us, and our endeavours, will be reduced to optimization and learning algorithms eventually. The main issue in determining man or machine in each situation eventually will be which has the lower TOC.

In the same way as the Go master (perhaps) feels disillusioned by being beaten by the AI, I think people in general will not accept humans being replaced with machines in some "special fields". In those fields, the customer/user, will not experience the same utility if a robot is doing the service compared to another human, even if they are indistinguishable.

I think an interesting issue here is that in the (far) future, many services could be performed cheaper by AI/robots and in such a way that the customer is unable to tell wether a human is involved or not. And in this future, humans will probably be a premium service.

Take motor sports for example. We can probably now/soon replace F1 drivers with algorithms and cameras, but nobody would pay 1000's of USD to watch them drive around in Monaco. If it would turn out someday that the drivers had been replaced (for safety reasons or whatever) without telling the fans, the outcry would be tremendous. And even if outcry does not always equal "true utility", I think it highlights my point: humans made of flesh and blood risking their lives or performing extraordinary feats have an intrinsic economic value that can't be replaced.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#447

Post by naniwaduni »

sukilot wrote: post #241
JackFr wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Come on, none of us are really "human" anymore since the advent of cell phones. Come on, none of us are really "human" anymore since the advent of writing.

Come on, none of us are really "human" anymore since the advent of gut bacteria.

Come on, none of us were ever really "human" since the advent of eukaryotism.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#448

Post by dfan »

mlurp wrote: post #404
breatheoften wrote: post #374

I sympathize. It used to be that you might be able to believe that there is some kind of art behind go, some sort of abstract beauty to it, and that the pursuit of this beauty is the path to being good at go ... But the defeat of the tactics born from this mindset by MCTS at least for now lay bare the fact that the path to being good at go is actually to probabilistically sample the phase space of the game and perfor…

Is this true? From what I've read about Alpha Zero/etc, in both Go and chess, it's going interesting move sequences that people hadn't considered viable before. That certainly seems like an interesting thing to learn. Also, sure, you can dismiss it all as statistics. But how sure are you that what's happening with humans isn't in some form? I'd also say that MCTS is something people kind of do too in games: look a fe…

No, it isn't. The top humans are much better at Go than they were four years ago, largely due to learning from the new engines. If it were all just about sampling the phase space zillions of times, this would not be the case.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#449

Post by currymj »

filleokus wrote: post #446
bhouston wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this will happen to all of humanness in time. Everything we think is unique about us, and our endeavours, will be reduced to optimization and learning algorithms eventually. The main issue in determining man or machine in each situation eventually will be which has the lower TOC.

In the same way as the Go master (perhaps) feels disillusioned by being beaten by the AI, I think people in general will not accept humans being replaced with machines in some "special fields". In those fields, the customer/user, will not experience the same utility if a robot is doing the service compared to another human, even if they are indistinguishable. I think an interesting issue here is that in the (far) fut…

as early as the 90s, automated control systems in F1 resulted in cars (i.e. Williams FW14) that to some extent drove themselves better than any human. indeed, many of the systems used have been specifically banned since then.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#450

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

ammon wrote: post #305
btilly wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking too much like a human. No, you're thinking too much like someone who understands chess but not Go. Suppose that we built an opening book with a trillion reasonable courses of action on it. Each one analyzed well. As you have discovered, you will only go a few ply into the game. And all of the positions that you will be directed towards will have only a small edge. Instead put a tiny fraction of the co…

I want to add that opening books are not THAT effective in computer chess either. Yes, they are significantly more effective than in computer go (because of the smaller branching factor and greater role of tactics). However, exponential increase in game tree size is crazy, even in chess. Thus, opening books really can't take you THAT far into a chess game (10 moves). An engine with a worse book but better search/eval…

I've heard that opening books make Stockfish about 70 Elo better, which is very significant.

10 moves into a chess game is actually pretty far. The directions the game can go are massively narrowed 10 moves in.

Post reply on HN