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

571–576 of 576 posts

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

#571

Post by apag »

jonahx wrote: post #430
netheril96 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It was not a good point.

AlphaGo can’t decide that it’s bored and go skydiving. Humans aren’t merely capable of playing Go. And when they do it, they can also pace around the table, and drink something, all at the same time, on a ridiculously low energy budget. Or they can decide never to learn Go in the first place but to master an equally difficult other discipline. They continuously decide what out of all of this to do at any given moment.

AlphaGo was built by humans, for a purpose selected by humans, out of algorithms designed by humans. It is not a more advanced species. It’s not even a general intelligence.

Your own original point was much better than the one made in response.

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

#572

Post by versteegen »

kerkeslager wrote: post #561
versteegen wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> That's tantamount to saying strong AI is unreasonable.

No, what I said is that it's unreasonable to expect that strong AI would play better Go than whatever the contemporary state-of-the-art Go AI is. But stated like that, I'm not sure I can agree with my statement. Strong AI could design and implement its own specialised Go AI. How would you count that?!

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

#574

Post by thevibesman »

taneq wrote: post #551
thevibesman wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only did the commentator do a triple-take, but the next white move took Sedol about 15 minutes. One interesting thing that happened during the time for Sedol's next move was that the 9th dan commentator started referring to AlphaGo as "he".

Yeah, I've been noticing the pronouns thing. In chess challenges I always got the impression that the AI's play style was like a chain chomp. Limited, but ruthless within its limits, and definitely 'mechanical'. In these games the commentators are treating AlphaGo like a person.

I might be imagining it, but I think this has been increasing with each game.

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

#575

Post by executesorder66 »

dmoy wrote: post #356
Ensorceled wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Could AlphaGO be winning in a way similar to left handed fencers having an advantage over right handers by wrong footing them rather than simply being bett…

I would also posit that lefties' advantage basically disappears once you get to a certain level in fencing. Past some point, it's basically all just footwork anyways, and your orientation doesn't change the distance of your target (foil and saber at least, can't comment on epee as they seem to just kinda bounce in place a lot even at Olympic level).

Can confirm. My brother fenced at a club that had a lot of lefties. All the righties got used to it quickly, and had no real disadvantage when playing against lefties.

I could easily see the difference in tournaments with other clubs that were not used to left handed players.

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

#576

Post by kerkeslager »

versteegen wrote: post #572
kerkeslager wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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…

> That's tantamount to saying strong AI is unreasonable. No, what I said is that it's unreasonable to expect that strong AI would play better Go than whatever the contemporary state-of-the-art Go AI is. But stated like that, I'm not sure I can agree with my statement. Strong AI could design and implement its own specialised Go AI. How would you count that?!

Yeah, that's an interesting case. My initial reaction is that I'd think of it as a tool that the AI was using. If a human used such a tool I'd consider it cheating at the game. But a self-modifying strong AI could integrate the specialized go AI into itself. If that is not considered cheating, should it be considered cheating for a human player to integrate tools into their physiology? Today it's pacemakers, why not a specialized go chip with a neural interface tomorrow? And this is assuming the strong AI even has a concept of a self separate from the software it controls; that separation might not even make sense.

I think we might not be able to answer these questions until a strong AI emerges.

Post reply on HN