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

81–88 of 88 posts

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

#81

Post by nurettin »

Kranar wrote: post #66
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).

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…

Those position counts don't account for blunders or bad tactics which the players will take advantage of in order to simplify and win. In go, any move that lets your opponent cut you off is highly likely a blunder, so counting every other move other than the obvious one you have to play in order to not lose is pretty useless. You can also call it a bad move if you are not under an immediate threat and you are not invading. (this is a guess, I am not a go player) So counting the rest of the moves developing in your territory is also useless.

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

#82

Post by anon84873628 »

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…

For extra fun, use the "Listen to article" feature on that paragraph...

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

#83

Post by xcv123 »

dvh wrote: post #49
ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #4

I thought it would be an easy victory I ... ended up only winning one out of our five games It's interesting, how an expert in a field can be unaware of how AI is taking over. And a few years later, no human can compete anymore. I think we are in a similar situation in multiple professions today. For example with self-driving. Musk recently said, that other car manufacturers are not much interested in talks about lic…

FSD will never work because it concentrates defendants into single juicy target. When your neighbor Bob (who is still paying mortgage and his wife is battling cancer and who occasionally babysit your kids) ran over your cat, you don't sue him. But you would sue Tesla. Mark my words, in 10 years ex-programmers will be throwing shelter cats under FSD cars just to earn a living.

It will have 100 cameras capturing surround footage of ex-coders throwing cats at the vehicle. Case dismissed.

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

#84

Post by QuantumGood »

RetroTechie wrote: post #77
alas44 wrote: post #47

Google's documentary on AlphaGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuK6gekU1Y Truly a must watch! (just look at the video comments to be convinced)

+1 What stuck with me is Lee Sedol's strong emotional reaction, leading him to leave professional Go playing. It's understandable he didn't expect AlphaGo to be that strong. Or that (for him) losing to a machine took the 'soul' out of the game. But come on... I've been cornered by Pac-Man ghosts many times. That doesn't make Pac-Man less fun to play. Nor does losing to the crude 'AI' steering those ghosts. Instead, y…

Some people connect their ego tightly to their accomplishments. Others are emotionally fragile to what they perceive as negative experiences. Some achieve great things by what they perceive as great sacrifices, and have a lot of difficulty maintaining what they have achieved. Some at or near the top of a field perceive their accomplishment primarily as being "best", and are consumed with angst when they are no longer best. The public explanation they give may not describe how they are different than someone trying to understand.

Open up how you frame personality types and life experiences, and you can think of possibilities beyond "I don't see how".

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

#86

Post by bluecalm »

Kranar wrote: post #66
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).

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…

Yes, for example no limit Rock Paper Scissors where you bet an arbitrary amount and your opponent might call or fold is a game that:

1)has infinitely many legal states/positions

2)imperfect information (another argument often used to argue that game is more complex)

And is:

3)dead simple to play optimally

It's also easy to design a board game with arbitrary number of legal positions that is dead simple to play optimally.

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

#87

Post by tasuki »

QuantumGood wrote: post #84
RetroTechie wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 What stuck with me is Lee Sedol's strong emotional reaction, leading him to leave professional Go playing. It's understandable he didn't expect AlphaGo to be that strong. Or that (for him) losing to a machine took the 'soul' out of the game. But come on... I've been cornered by Pac-Man ghosts many times. That doesn't make Pac-Man less fun to play. Nor does losing to the crude 'AI' steering those ghosts. Instead, y…

Some people connect their ego tightly to their accomplishments. Others are emotionally fragile to what they perceive as negative experiences. Some achieve great things by what they perceive as great sacrifices, and have a lot of difficulty maintaining what they have achieved. Some at or near the top of a field perceive their accomplishment primarily as being "best", and are consumed with angst when they are no longer…

There's a plausible explanation even without ego/emotions:

In the world of go, there was an obsession with finding "the perfect move". This was a significant motivation for the players.

That is now completely gone: if you want to find the perfect move, ask a computer.

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

#88

Post by tasuki »

RetroTechie wrote: post #77
alas44 wrote: post #47

Google's documentary on AlphaGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuK6gekU1Y Truly a must watch! (just look at the video comments to be convinced)

+1 What stuck with me is Lee Sedol's strong emotional reaction, leading him to leave professional Go playing. It's understandable he didn't expect AlphaGo to be that strong. Or that (for him) losing to a machine took the 'soul' out of the game. But come on... I've been cornered by Pac-Man ghosts many times. That doesn't make Pac-Man less fun to play. Nor does losing to the crude 'AI' steering those ghosts. Instead, y…

He wanted to advance our knowledge of the game, to find better moves. Now that he no longer can, why pay?
Post reply on HN