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

AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–596 of 596 posts

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#591

Post by CamperBob2 »

zodiac wrote: post #118
CamperBob2 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting thing is that this algorithm taught itself to master the game. If you're writing a chess engine, you just "write the AI for the problem space" in a few dozen lines of code, as you put it, and let brute force do the rest. In the case of DeepMind, faced with a game where a traversal approach is numerically impossible, its programmers gave it the ability to improve by playing against itself. That's the d…

> its programmers gave it the ability to improve by playing against itself Good chess programs definitely use self-play to improve themselves, eg to tune parameters and heuristics.

They don't invent moves that they weren't explicitly programmed to play, though, do they? People at the top level of play have been beaten by chess programs but not surprised by them, the way the Go professionals have been in this case. DeepBlue didn't teach us anything about chess that we didn't already know.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#592

Post by Houshalter »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #589
Houshalter wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's reinforcement learning and it's even more "telling the computer what to do" than teaching it with examples. No one tells the computer what to do. They just let it do it's thing, and give it a reward when it succeeds. >Not all AI has a reward function. Specific algorithms do. "All" AI? Fine, all general AI. Like game playing etc. Minimax isn't general, and it does require a precise "value function" to tell it…

>> No one tells the computer what to do. Sure they do. Say you have a machine learning algorithm, that can learn a task from examples, and let's notate it like so: y = f(x) Where y is the trained system, f the learning function and x the training examples. The "x", the training examples, is what tells the computer what to learn, therefore, what to do once it's trained. If you change the x, the learner can do a differ…

The thing about neural networks is they can generalize from one domain to another. We don' have a million different algorithms, one for recognizing cars, and another for recognizing dogs, etc. They learn features that both have in common.

>The "x", the training examples, is what tells the computer what to learn, therefore, what to do once it's trained. If you change the x, the learner can do a different y. Therefore, you're telling the computer what to do.

But with RL, a computer can discover it's own training examples from experience. They don't need to be given to it.

>I'm still not clear what you're saying; game-playing AI is not an instance of general AI.

But it is! The distinction between the real world and a game is arbitrary. If an algorithm can learn to play a random video game, you can just as easily plug it into a robot and let it play "real life". The world is more complicated, of course, but not qualitatively different.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#593

Post by pfisch »

pgodzin wrote: post #144
pfisch wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, it could be created in the next 10 to 20 years. We should be taking steps to outlaw black box algorithms right now but I'm sure we won't.

How do you outlaw black box algorithms? What is a black box algorithm? Should we outlaw all calls to libraries we don't have the complete source code to? I can't understand the call to regulate a technology when it is decades (much more that 10-20 years) away from possibly existing in a state that we can't even imagine. Add to that legislators with zero technical literacy. That's essentially advocating for shutting d…

A black box algorithm is any algorithm that wasn't really written by a human. It isn't about having the source code, it is about utilizing the output of a neural network, which is built up by multiplying a bunch of inputs by weight values and is basically nonsense when you look at it.

Basically any algorithm where you are training it with tons of samples and then it creates a logic tree that is not written by a human is a black box algorithm.

By the time AI technology gets to the point that we realize we should regulate it we will be too late.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#594

Post by Radim »

habosa wrote: post #555
Radim wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, AlphaGo's progress is amazing. I don't think there's any disagreement there :) But I don't think you know much about Go, if you can say Fan Hui is "just" 2 dan professional. What do you reckon the strength difference is between 2p and 9p? Nitpick: while AlphaGo today is certainly stronger than AlphaGo last October, it doesn't follow in any way from the fact that both programs beat their respective opponents. A >…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_ranks_and_ratings#Elo-like_... You can use that table to calculate the win probability for a 9dan player versus a 2dan player.

I rest my case.

For your info: professional ranks do not reflect strength. They are honorary and based (typically) on achievement and seniority.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#595

Post by d0mine »

adenadel wrote: post #427
d0mine wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Francis Collins? said something like: people underestimate the change in the short term and overestimate it in the long term (there is my flying DeLorean and the hotel on the Moon).

I think you got it backwards. Bill Gates said "We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten. Don't let yourself be lulled into inaction."

I meant what I said (and I didn't mean the Gates' quote).

There are no flying DeLoreans (Back to the Future). There are no hotels on the Moon (Mad Man). People overestimate long-term (20+ years) change.

It just shows once more that for any maxim there is a maxim with the opposite meaning.

Re: AlphaGo beats the world champion Lee Sedol in first of five matches

#596

Post by jakub_h »

exDM69 wrote: post #438
nwah1 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's some possibilities: Stacked 3D chips (HBM, etc), Heterogenous computing (OpenCL, Vulkan), Optical computing, Memristors, Graphene-based microchips, Superconductors, Spintronics, Quantum computers, Genetic computers (self-reconfigurable)

Heterogenous computing is already used in AlphaGo (and your smartphone). 3d chips will come to mainstream devices in a few years, but will give "only" a modest performance boost, say 2x or so. The rest of the technologies you mention have great potential but will they be available in a smartphone in one decade? I don't think so.

You might ultimately only need some specialized "neural processing instruction set" for either the GPU cores or for the CPU cores. Or at least, I don't see any obvious obstacles to that.
Post reply on HN