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

AlphaGo's next move

deepmind.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 179 posts

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#91

Post by theptip »

matt4077 wrote: post #19
probably_wrong wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are several activities right now that people keep doing despite machines being better suited: martial arts (and more in point, HEMA[1]), handicrafts, several Olympic sports. Why would anyone attempt to run a marathon under two hours, when any car can do it in 30 minutes? I think the answer lies less in "I will be the absolute best", and more along the lines of "I will do it better than anyone before me". And so…

It does feel like there's a difference–maybe Go and Chess are just so much closer to what defines humanity than any physical sports?

I think there is something to this line of reasoning, but I'm not sure we have to get that abstract.

I suspect this stems from the fact that each game imposes its own set of artificial restrictions. Of course you don't ride a horse in a footrace; that's not the game. Just as you don't confer with your team of experts in a Go game. A game is only given meaning by the artificial restrictions it defines.

Within the bounds of the rules of the footrace, the game is still competitive for humans; currently this is somewhat tautologically so. (Though I think we will have a similar conversation to this when human cyborgs can out-compete unmodified humans [1]). The fact that there are things faster than a human outside of the bounds of the game is irrelevant.

In Go, within the bounds of the rules of the game, humanity cannot compete at the highest level any more. I see that as a big difference.

[1]: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/seriously-d...

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#92

Post by theptip »

> We plan to publish one final academic paper later this year that will detail the extensive set of improvements we made to the algorithms’ efficiency and potential to be generalised across a broader set of problems.

I'm fascinated to see what the next step for this AI is. Anyone care to speculate what a system like this could most readily be applied to?

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#93

Post by abhi3 »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #88

There was a time not too far back when people used to be considered a "genius" for their ability to memorize things well. Nowadays nobody thinks of them as geniuses. Also, people used to be considered geniuses for knowing a lot of things. Nowadays information is just a Google search away, so knowing a lot doesn't really mean as much as it used to. What matters more nowadays is your ability to learn synthesize the thi…

>Nowadays information is just a Google search away

Knowing what is credible and what is not on the internet is a skill in itself. If you don't have that skill you'd likely be telling people all about how Bush did 9/11 or how hillary killed a DNC employee.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#94

Post by rcpt »

abhi3 wrote: post #93
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #88

There was a time not too far back when people used to be considered a "genius" for their ability to memorize things well. Nowadays nobody thinks of them as geniuses. Also, people used to be considered geniuses for knowing a lot of things. Nowadays information is just a Google search away, so knowing a lot doesn't really mean as much as it used to. What matters more nowadays is your ability to learn synthesize the thi…

>Nowadays information is just a Google search away Knowing what is credible and what is not on the internet is a skill in itself. If you don't have that skill you'd likely be telling people all about how Bush did 9/11 or how hillary killed a DNC employee.

That part can be automated to. See https://fullfact.org/blog/2016/aug/automated-factchecking/ for example

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#95

Post by andrepd »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #88

There was a time not too far back when people used to be considered a "genius" for their ability to memorize things well. Nowadays nobody thinks of them as geniuses. Also, people used to be considered geniuses for knowing a lot of things. Nowadays information is just a Google search away, so knowing a lot doesn't really mean as much as it used to. What matters more nowadays is your ability to learn synthesize the thi…

> Also, people used to be considered geniuses for knowing a lot of things.

This is still true, and in the eagerness to dismiss "memorization" as a thing of the past you overlook the obvious. For example, anything you care to know about, say, C++ programming or quantum field theory is available to you on the internet. But does that mean you can write a C++ program as if you had already learned it? What if you want to write a C++ program and you have to look up everything? You will do a very poor job if at all, and you will take a lot of time.

So yeah, until looking up stuff in the internet is as quick as effective as looking stuff up in your brain (the quick may happen but the effective I don't think so), then it still is a very worthy skill.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#96

Post by carapace »

temp_12345 wrote: post #75

So, a question bordering on the philosophical : What can be done to prepare for the end of human supremacy, and quite likely human civilization? For instance, as a software developer it feels almost pointless to continue improving at my craft if AI systems will surpass me within 2-4 years (even if the pessimists are right about it taking 5-10 years, that's still an awfully small timeframe). Likewise, it feels a littl…

"What are people for?"

That's the question you're asking.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#97

Post by ac29 »

temp_12345 wrote: post #75

So, a question bordering on the philosophical : What can be done to prepare for the end of human supremacy, and quite likely human civilization? For instance, as a software developer it feels almost pointless to continue improving at my craft if AI systems will surpass me within 2-4 years (even if the pessimists are right about it taking 5-10 years, that's still an awfully small timeframe). Likewise, it feels a littl…

Is there really anyone credibly suggesting software developers will be surpassed by AI within a few years? Writing arbitrary software seems dramatically more complex than what "AI" like systems are capable of today.

Even 10 years seems impossibly soon.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#99

Post by jayd16 »

andrepd wrote: post #95
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #88

There was a time not too far back when people used to be considered a "genius" for their ability to memorize things well. Nowadays nobody thinks of them as geniuses. Also, people used to be considered geniuses for knowing a lot of things. Nowadays information is just a Google search away, so knowing a lot doesn't really mean as much as it used to. What matters more nowadays is your ability to learn synthesize the thi…

> Also, people used to be considered geniuses for knowing a lot of things. This is still true, and in the eagerness to dismiss "memorization" as a thing of the past you overlook the obvious. For example, anything you care to know about, say, C++ programming or quantum field theory is available to you on the internet. But does that mean you can write a C++ program as if you had already learned it? What if you want to…

But you've just proven cocktailpeanuts point that its about the ability to use the knowledge, not simply recall it.

Re: AlphaGo's next move

#100

Post by AndyNemmity »

skybrian wrote: post #85
nopinsight wrote: post #70

One common comment from Go players at all levels up to 9-dan pros is that they don't understand many of the moves. The same will happen as more and more advanced AIs are used in the real world. Yes, we do not completely understand the workings of current advanced neural networks either but the effects are still contained as they are not general enough to cause unintended impact outside their domains. This could have…

They don't fully understand the moves but on the other hand, the live commentary on the games suggests it's not completely mysterious. Good moves still tend to look good to them, in retrospect at least. The games are apparently very interesting to study.

Against a human, the games look fairly straight forward.

From what they've released against itself, the games look like a different game. Especially at times, Game 2 in the current crop for example.

Post reply on HN