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

AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol again in match 2 of 5

gogameguru.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 576 posts

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

#561

Post by kerkeslager »

versteegen wrote: post #555
kerkeslager wrote: post #552

As a programmer and a go player, I knew this day would come, but I'm a bit disappointed that this is how it happened, for two reasons: 1. As the game of go progresses, the number of reasonable moves decreases, so that as the game progresses, players on average play closer and closer to optimally. By the end of the game, even weak amateurs can calculate the optimal move. Logically, I would guess that stronger players…

> I hoped that when an AI beat a pro at go, it would be with a more adaptive algorithm, one not specifically designed to play go. The particular algorithm used by AlphaGo is of course specific to Go (the neural network inputs have a number of hand-crafted features), but the overall structure of the algorithm - MCTS, deep neural nets, reinforcement learning - is very general. So there's two ways to look at it. One is…

> ...the overall structure of the algorithm - MCTS, deep neural nets, reinforcement learning - is very general.

It is general in the sense that humans can apply those algorithms to different problems (and have been doing so for decades). It isn't general in the sense that we can't apply AlphaGo to other problems unmodified. AlphaGo can't even play chess badly. It is not really even a step toward strong AI. (Note that "strong AI" is a term with a specific meaning. [1])

> The other is that what you asked for is completely unreasonable.

That's tantamount to saying strong AI is unreasonable.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI

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

#562

Post by argonaut »

taneq wrote: post #214
argonaut wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear this is an overly mystical misinterpretation of neural nets. (Standard feed-forward) neural nets are layers of non-linear feature transformations. They take inputs and at each step transform those inputs into a more compact representation, distilling the inputs into their most important factors (and throwing away unimportant factors). So the most likely explanation is that policy/value nets in AlphaGo have lea…

> distilling the inputs into their most important factors (and throwing away unimportant factors). Isn't that pretty much the definition of intuition? Combining a bunch of things in some unknown and nonlinear way to result in a 'feeling' about the situation?

Yes. But the person I was responding to was definitely up in the clouds describing things as "magic" (and implicitly equating intuition to magic).

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

#564

Post by JackFr »

ganwar wrote: post #212
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…

> And now an AI without emotion, philosophy or personality just comes in and brushes all of that aside and turns Go into a simple game of mathematics Well, I am of the opinion that mathematics is the language that subsumes all other kinds of languages and line of thoughts. In the end we shall be able to describe every idea or thought in purely mathematical form.

> In the end we shall be able to describe every idea or thought in purely mathematical form.

That is a very ironically imprecise sentiment.

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

#565

Post by nihilnegativum »

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…

Abstraction is the domain we need to research before we understand intelligence in general, the ways our abstraction is determined by nature and more importantly the ways that will become possible when we surpass it.

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

#566

Post by eru »

avar wrote: post #176
eru wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still have the Turing test.

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

That's because humans ain't playing to win the Turing test, yet. They are still humouring the machine.

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

#567

Post by iopq »

bad_user wrote: post #451
iopq wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I know this is a semi-joke, but it's worth discussing. While such people are less smart than average or have a deficiency in their education or both, unless you're talking about mentally handicapped people with a medical diagnosis, all normal humans have a conscience, are capable of reasoning, can understand complex symbols, can entertain complex thought, are very good pattern matching machines, can speak natural lan…

Yes, but you also have a database of answers from people, so even if you ask things like "what color is the sky" you're still getting the right answer.

Check out http://www.jabberwacky.com/

it jokes with you, it gives vulgar answers sometimes, etc.

it's NOT good enough to fool someone, but what if you just made it sound like it's a person with a disability? Is that still beating the Turing test? Is talking to a "five year old" still beating the Turing test?

Or does it have to be a 100 IQ adult person fluent in English? In which case that's just improving the bot a bit. To make it a funny and charming bot it would require even more effort. But it's just slowly improving the state of the art with some kind of techniques like reinforcement learning or neural networks or whatnot.

When a bot actually beats the Turing test it wouldn't be big news because it would just be a slightly better jabberwacky.

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

#568

Post by eru »

avar wrote: post #468
bad_user wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> So while passing the Turing Test may not be enough, not passing > the Turing Test is a sign that the computer is unintelligent. You could have an intelligence that's just not smart in the human sense. Consider running into an alien intelligence evolved from our equivalent of octopuses, you ask it a questions but it only communicates via color changes on its body. Similarly you can conceive of an AI that's smart, se…

Oh, the Turing test was suggested as a sufficient test, not as a necessary condition.

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

#569

Post by apag »

danharaj wrote: post #514
kqr wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as arbitrary. Unless you're a self-sustaining vegan, you're costing a lot of energy even to just get you the few thousands of kcal your metabolism consumes. Unless you're not counting support systems, in case it becomes very complicated to calculate and decide exactly which energy expenses are for support systems and which are directly integral for function.

We have two computational substrates, human brains, and CPU/GPU clusters. Forget what it takes to support them, just consider what they consume while computing, that is, the energy consumed while they are playing the game. Lee Sedol is vastly more efficient than the entire AlphaGo cluster. However, while AlphaGo gains a predictable amount of power as its computing power is increased, it's not clear that one could do…

Let’s not forget that aside from being vastly more energy efficient as a Go player, Lee Sedol is additionally capable of taking on a virtually unlimited list of other, equally machine-challenging tasks – while AlphaGo can only do one thing. In fact, Lee can lift himself off the chair to a standing position, pace around the table, lift a glass to his mouth, keep it there while emptying some of it, and think about his next move – all at the same time. (And on the same energy budget.) And far beyond all that, he decides whether to do these things – or something else instead.

I admit my first thought on fairness did go in the same direction of limiting energy budgets. But after reflecting on it just long enough to realise the above, I am finding myself surprisingly uninterested. It now seems to me that nothing particularly insightful would be revealed: limiting energy budget is no less arbitrary than limiting time unless the artificial opponent is expected to be capable of a range of things comparable to that expectable of an average human. Or if expectations are much lower, the artificial opponent would need to contend with drastically tighter limits to approach “fairness” – though at this time it would be guesswork how much tighter they ought to be. Either way, it is glaringly obvious that no computer would come within miles of competing.

So ultimately the fact that Go has been “broken” (in a particular sense) at all is far more interesting to me than whether the machine is competitive with the human in any more general sense. “It’s not” as the universal answer is boring.

And to digress a bit from there: From that perspective, this was ultimately a very human achievement. It was humans who chose Go as a problem to attack and it was them who picked MCTS and deep learning as the way to go. (Uh, no pun intended.) That’s not just reassuring. It’s also a framing we should keep in mind as computers become more entangled with the physical world and more autonomous.

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

#570

Post by [deleted] »

danharaj wrote: post #514
kqr wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as arbitrary. Unless you're a self-sustaining vegan, you're costing a lot of energy even to just get you the few thousands of kcal your metabolism consumes. Unless you're not counting support systems, in case it becomes very complicated to calculate and decide exactly which energy expenses are for support systems and which are directly integral for function.

We have two computational substrates, human brains, and CPU/GPU clusters. Forget what it takes to support them, just consider what they consume while computing, that is, the energy consumed while they are playing the game. Lee Sedol is vastly more efficient than the entire AlphaGo cluster. However, while AlphaGo gains a predictable amount of power as its computing power is increased, it's not clear that one could do…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN