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

8 years later: A world Go champion's reflections on AlphaGo

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: 8 years later: A world Go champion's reflections on AlphaGo

#61

Post by ghaff »

samatman wrote: post #28
bevekspldnw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Driving” is solved. Driving with humans on the road - doing unpredictable human things - is far off still. My guess is industrial and home robotics will solve a lot of the “doing things around humans” problems in the next ten years. Why the hell people decided to automate giant death machines before perfecting small things never made sense to me.

I think your guess that home robotics will be solving problems before self-driving cars git gud will be disproven (industrial robotics have been delivering value for five decades at least). Home robotics has to solve two problems: the robot and operating the robot ~perfectly. Self-driving cars already have cars, which are waldos, if you squint. What sort of sensors should be added is up for debate but the actuation m…

And cleaning a house isn't one task. It's a whole slew of different tasks which, given some basic instructions, my housekeeper can handle easily without supervision. And there's quite a bit of common sense required.

Re: 8 years later: A world Go champion's reflections on AlphaGo

#62

Post by falserum »

bluecalm wrote: post #54
tromp wrote: post #5

> Go is a deeply complex strategic game — famously far more complicated than chess, with 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible board configurations. The correct number of legal Go positions is over twice as much, or to…

Complexity of the game has nothing to do with the number of legal positions. It's very easy to design a game with arbitrary number of positions which is very simple. While go might be more complex than chess using a more reasonable measure this argument was used to for arguing nonsense in scientific papers in the past (that some poker games are more complicated than chess because they have more possible states).

I have a further nitpick regarding terminology.

Wording like “game is more complex” overal seems incorrect. Game is not complex by itself (for example go rules are extreemly simple), all the difficulty and challenge depends on the skill of your oponent. Game only allows the opponent to demonstrate the skill.

Re: 8 years later: A world Go champion's reflections on AlphaGo

#63

Post by mNovak »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #15

I know there are Go channels in Korea for watching professional matches... are there any for watching AIs face off against each other?

Michael Redmond, to my knowledge the highest ranked English-speaking Go player, does youtube analyses of Go matches, including Pro vs AI games, which are very insightful.

Re: 8 years later: A world Go champion's reflections on AlphaGo

#64

Post by ghaff »

jsheard wrote: post #23
bevekspldnw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Driving” is solved. Driving with humans on the road - doing unpredictable human things - is far off still. My guess is industrial and home robotics will solve a lot of the “doing things around humans” problems in the next ten years. Why the hell people decided to automate giant death machines before perfecting small things never made sense to me.

> “Driving” is solved. Driving with humans on the road - doing unpredictable human things - is far off still. Plus there's serious questions about liability with self driving cars which are still unresolved in most of the world - if the goal is to have vehicles operate themselves with no human supervision, who goes to jail when they kill someone? Despite all of the progress that's been made with AI it's mostly been i…

The answer almost certainly has to be the manufacturer. I'm sure not responsible if my properly maintained and used self-driving car kills someone. That said, it's a novel area that doesn't have a clear analog to other products today.

Re: 8 years later: A world Go champion's reflections on AlphaGo

#65

Post by Buttons840 »

ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #10
svachalek wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In ten years, probably no human can compete with AI drivers anymore. That's what they said 10 years ago. Sooner or later people will say it and be right, but the last few percent of any problem is a lot harder than people give it credit for. It may not be that hard to stay in a lane or write a little code, and that may look like it's doing most of the job, but those common tasks are just the easy part.

10 years ago, a lot of FSD was still manually written code. Manually written code gets harder and harder to improve, the larger the codebase. Now it is all NNs and therefore will scale with more data and more compute. Which is increasing exponentially. So far it seems like they are not hitting diminishing returns.

Yeah, and plain Q learning is able to iteratively improve a policy in any environment. Every single loop leading to improvement, and yet it hasn't really solved much of anything since the 60s (just some toy problems).

My point being, we don't know where the asymptote lies. Computers have had self improving algorithms since the 60s, and people have been making the same bold claims, like you, that because an iterative process for improvement has been discovered, we're close to super human AI since the 60s too.

Re: 8 years later: A world Go champion's reflections on AlphaGo

#66

Post by Kranar »

bluecalm wrote: post #54
tromp wrote: post #5

> Go is a deeply complex strategic game — famously far more complicated than chess, with 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible board configurations. The correct number of legal Go positions is over twice as much, or to…

Complexity of the game has nothing to do with the number of legal positions. It's very easy to design a game with arbitrary number of positions which is very simple. While go might be more complex than chess using a more reasonable measure this argument was used to for arguing nonsense in scientific papers in the past (that some poker games are more complicated than chess because they have more possible states).

Are you sure that the complexity of a game has absolutely nothing to do with the number of legal positions?

I mean I am open to hear the justification for this, but I was fairly certain that all measures of game complexity are a function of the number of legal positions. Now certainly there are other factors, namely the cost of computing the transition from one legal move to another legal move so a simple game might have a very low cost transition function while a complex game has a very complex transition function, but I can't conceive of a game where the number of legal positions bears no weight on the game's complexity.

Re: 8 years later: A world Go champion's reflections on AlphaGo

#67

Post by tromp »

falserum wrote: post #62
bluecalm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complexity of the game has nothing to do with the number of legal positions. It's very easy to design a game with arbitrary number of positions which is very simple. While go might be more complex than chess using a more reasonable measure this argument was used to for arguing nonsense in scientific papers in the past (that some poker games are more complicated than chess because they have more possible states).

I have a further nitpick regarding terminology. Wording like “game is more complex” overal seems incorrect. Game is not complex by itself (for example go rules are extreemly simple), all the difficulty and challenge depends on the skill of your oponent. Game only allows the opponent to demonstrate the skill.

Beyond rule complexity, there are at least 5 measures of game complexity in Combinatorial game theory [1]:

    State-space complexity
    Game tree size
    Decision complexity
    Game-tree complexity
    Computational complexity
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity

Re: 8 years later: A world Go champion's reflections on AlphaGo

#68

Post by sfn42 »

imiric wrote: post #59
huytersd wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What dysfunctional products. I use atleast 7 Google products during my day and they all work really well and for free .

> for free Strange to see this popular misconception on HN. Adtech products are certainly not free/gratis. You're paying with your data, usage and attention. They're extracting far more value out of you than you do from their products.

Extracting makes it sound like they're taking something from me. From my perspective they're not. If they can make value from shit I do that's great, at least someone's getting something out of my procrastination.

And I get to use neat stuff like youtube, Google Docs etc without paying any money. Sounds like a win win to me.

Re: 8 years later: A world Go champion's reflections on AlphaGo

#69

Post by cjbgkagh »

huytersd wrote: post #51
cjbgkagh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the average hour is not driven by the average driver, better drivers drive more hours, so it has to be better than the average driver in order to result in fewer incidents.

There’s no reason better drivers drive more hours. You can be a shit semi driver. That being said, it’s an irrelevant comment. If it’s at average now this is the worst it can get and it’s already way above average.

I don’t disagree that self driving is good and will eventually get there. Just pointing out a flaw in your reasoning.

Yes, such a person can exist, the hypothetical counter example doesn’t disprove the general statement. I think it’s safe to say that in general the more time someone spends driving the better driver they are.

Re: 8 years later: A world Go champion's reflections on AlphaGo

#70

Post by Kranar »

tromp wrote: post #67
falserum wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a further nitpick regarding terminology. Wording like “game is more complex” overal seems incorrect. Game is not complex by itself (for example go rules are extreemly simple), all the difficulty and challenge depends on the skill of your oponent. Game only allows the opponent to demonstrate the skill.

Beyond rule complexity, there are at least 5 measures of game complexity in Combinatorial game theory [1]: State-space complexity Game tree size Decision complexity Game-tree complexity Computational complexity [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity

Those are all meaningful measures of complexity, but it's worth noting that all of them are a function of the number of legal positions (among other things as well).
Post reply on HN