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

AlphaGo Is Not AI

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#81

Post by bsaul »

mannykannot wrote: post #43
bsaul wrote: post #35

I don't understand the critics this article receive here. It makes a very good counterpoint to all the hype the AI field is living at the moment, letting people from the general audience believe that algorithms will replace humans quite soon. You may think it doesn't matter, but we've candidates to the presidential elections here in france building economical programs assuming "robots will do everything soon, so let'…

If the mind is that what a physical brain does, then a physical brain can in principle be simulated - by crunching numbers - to produce a mind (some have claimed that there must be more to it than that, but none have come up with a generally-accepted justification for their position.)

That's another discussion. The algorithm we're building right now aren't simulateors of consciousness or thought or anything usually attributed to intelligence. They're not even trying to, and the theoretical foundations they're built on aren't theories of consciousness, but pure statistics and signal processing.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#82

Post by kirrent »

hueving wrote: post #79
iopq wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It uses intuition to play, which is how humans play, but it does it by considering way more positions that humans.

>It uses intuition to play, Not by the normal definition of intuition. It reasons about millions of moves.

Could you provide a citation for that figure? It's not one I've read but I don't necessarily disbelieve it. It is worth considering this perspective from one of the Deepmind Nature papers:

"During the match against Fan Hui, AlphaGo evaluated thousands of times fewer positions than Deep Blue did in its chess match against Kasparov; compensating by selecting those positions more intelligently, using the policy network, and evaluating them more precisely, using the value network—an approach that is perhaps closer to how humans play. Furthermore, while Deep Blue relied on a handcrafted evaluation function, the neural networks of AlphaGo are trained directly from gameplay purely through general-purpose supervised and reinforcement learning methods"

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#83

Post by Cybiote »

jononor wrote: post #76
chii wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is there any research into making a "generic" AI that can solve any problem without the researcher first having to know what that problem is? i.e., human style learning.

Not entirely sure that is a fair description of human-style learning. Our overall problem to solve is 'survive and reproduce'. Anything else can be seen as just a sub-problem of that. Humans are taught by other humans how to solve problems since the day they are born. Our DNA passes on a millions of generations worth of learning from our ancestors about how to solve problems.

It is a fair description. That being: able to enumerate a large number of arbitrary goals and define a large number of basic pattern classifiers/feature extractors.

When people give credit to the human designers for AlphaGo's wins, that it is really a win for humanity, I disagree. The wins are alphago's even if the design is of human ingenuity.

When You say that the outputs of human ingenuity should be credited to Evolution, I similarly disagree. You might as well credit evolution for AlphaGo's win. While it is true that Evolution invented the first AGI (and in some though not all ways, a superior intelligence to it), it still makes sense to separate the products of human learning from whatever structural priors DNA passed along. I'll also point out that compared to most animals, humans actually have weaker priors and spend a lot of their early days learning to learn.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#84

Post by joepanda »

pron wrote: post #39
joepanda wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would absolutely classify a tardigrade as an intelligent system. Systems of parts interacting in an intelligent way applies to more than just networks of nerve cells.

You've made a circular definition. And I wasn't claiming that only nerve cells can form intelligence, but I think that if we expand the definition beyond what people normally call intelligent, then we should be more precise than the vague "ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments" or else every complex adaptive system would be called intelligent, in which case we can drop that name because we already…

I wasn't to give a definition. Just refuting your claim that nobody would consider a tardigrade intelligent.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#85

Post by gus_massa »

chejazi wrote: post #11

OK, so we have AIs that are capable of solving a very specific problem. My questions is, are AI's capable of being composed? In the sense that if I have 1000 AIs that are each experts at performing their domain specific tasks, can one or more AIs be built on top of them that specialize almost exclusively in delegation? i.e. they delegate intelligently depending on the task at hand. If that's possible, then we could i…

It's not good to abuse of the analogies, but the human brain have to spend more time in task with conflicting information, for example to read the word "yellow" when it's written with blue ink, ... More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_effect

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#86

Post by dwringer »

kirrent wrote: post #78
dwringer wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say the challenge has been "solved" - the system may have only been able to win consistently because the programmers made adjustments and improvements to it between each game. Fitting its heuristics to a specific opponent might actually be overfitting unless it can consistently win against all challengers without being modified between rounds. [edited to clarify uncertainty about "why" it was able to win]

AlphaGo played plenty of games online after the Lee Seedol match. It went 60-0 against some of the worlds best players. Granted they were fast games but that's a challenge for AlphaGo as well as its adversaries.

Thank you for this information, it will definitely be interesting to see how the future of Go plays out. For example, will players be able to train with AlphaGo to the point of being able to beat it?

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#87

Post by mistercow »

hueving wrote: post #79
iopq wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It uses intuition to play, which is how humans play, but it does it by considering way more positions that humans.

>It uses intuition to play, Not by the normal definition of intuition. It reasons about millions of moves.

Those are two independent sentences which are not mutually exclusive.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#88

Post by jnicholasp »

jononor wrote: post #76
chii wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is there any research into making a "generic" AI that can solve any problem without the researcher first having to know what that problem is? i.e., human style learning.

Not entirely sure that is a fair description of human-style learning. Our overall problem to solve is 'survive and reproduce'. Anything else can be seen as just a sub-problem of that. Humans are taught by other humans how to solve problems since the day they are born. Our DNA passes on a millions of generations worth of learning from our ancestors about how to solve problems.

Tangential quibble: For anything that could be called "human-style" learning, which presumably requires abstract intelligence and cultural transmission, we're probably looking at something that has existed only during the period of human behavioral modernity - commonly taken to date from roughly 40-50,000 years ago. Assuming a generation is ~20 years (and there are some arguments that the average generation might have been closer to 25 years), that's only 2500 generations.

I think it's fascinating that we have developed from un-self-reflective animals, to abstract thinkers on the verge of creating wholly new abstract-thinking entities from scratch, in only two and half thousand steps. Especially given that the majority of the technical knowledge necessary was developed only in the last 500 years, or 25 generations.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#89

Post by jacquesm »

matt4077 wrote: post #67
flashman wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is AlphaGo really what we want to classify as 'intelligence'? It is a calculating engine – one which outperforms humans, to be sure, but no more intelligent than a properly-wielded pocket calculator.

Yes – stuff like this is confusing 'intelligence' with 'sentience'. Playing go or chess would have been classified as activities clearly requiring intelligence in the recent past. We're just moving the goalpost whenever AI advances. At some point, it'll probably divide mankind into fractions which either want or don't want to grant certain rights to AI (possibly obsoleted by the great AI uprising of 2025-20-11 6:45:2…

I don't think it is quite that simple.

The 'real world' is not nearly as nicely ordered and specified as a turns based game is. So a computer will be ideally positioned to take advantage of its ability to:

- remember perfectly, forever

- execute algorithms at extreme speed

- in parallel

So you end up with a race that is comparable to a sparrow against a jet airplane. Technology can and does beat biology regularly in all sorts of domains.

Slowly but surely computers are making their way into the real world: their programmers - and by extension the systems - learn how to adapt to the messiness of interacting with life as we know it.

Just like you'd first get kids to play in a playground (the games) and then let them loose in the real world (self driving cars and other much harder tasks).

In the end, all of these amount to a slow but steady march towards human equivalence on a large range of tasks, and excelling humans on plenty of them.

The hard AI question is one where we ask ourselves whether or not there will one of these days be a system that is better than humans on essentially all tasks without exception, including learning, creativity and so on. Once you reach that level all bets are off, until then the slow-but-steady march continues.

The difference is evolution vs revolution, but we've already seen enough progress in limited AI domains that we could conclude we're already seeing a minimal revolution. Whether it will result in a major one is still an open question, it could easily be that progress will at some point plateau.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#90

Post by kirrent »

dwringer wrote: post #86
kirrent wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AlphaGo played plenty of games online after the Lee Seedol match. It went 60-0 against some of the worlds best players. Granted they were fast games but that's a challenge for AlphaGo as well as its adversaries.

Thank you for this information, it will definitely be interesting to see how the future of Go plays out. For example, will players be able to train with AlphaGo to the point of being able to beat it?

Even more interesting to me is the question of if Go players will be able to apply the novel strategies of AlphaGo which break with decades of conventional wisdom or if there's something in their execution that requires such perfect play (but leads to a more certain outcome) that they're only feasibly played by AlphaGo.
Post reply on HN