10 ms·
AlphaGo Can't Beat Me, Says Chinese Go Grandmaster Ke Jie
- macmac 11y agoFamous last words.
- PuffinBlue 11y agoRead the article.
- macmac 11y agoI did.
- mtgx 11y agoI expected others to say that. Can't Google just allow anyone to play against it online after these 5 matches with Sedol conclude?
- jacquesm 11y agoWith the amount of computing power they throw at this I doubt that's something even google could easily fund.
- bnegreve 11y agoBut that would prove that they are not overfitting their opponent. Which would be nice.
- jacquesm 11y agoNot really. Even if it would only take a single dedicated GPU to win in real time against a human opponent you could not offer a service like that for free. If google massively overfits their opponent that equation still holds true so it's not really proof. It would only be proof if they switched off 10% or so of the array that powers their offering right now and it would lose from Lee Sedol consistently. For all you know they have a huge margin of error.
- bnegreve 11y agoI suspect that training the AI is the most CPU intensive part. If they would release the (trained) AI to everybody, that would prove that the training phase is general enough to beat any player, not just one. Google doesn't have to pay for the CPU time. Ke Jie can find sponsors if he pretends he can beat AlphaGo. (Edit: clarify)
- jacquesm 11y agoI don't doubt there is an a-symmetry between the number of machines / GPUs they throw at the problem during a match and during the run-up to a match but even so they will have to have some margin of error if they expect to win in the first place and besides that whatever that pile of hardware is it, the infrastructure required to run it and the people involved are not free.
- eru 11y agoAlas, the software is tied to Google's platform. Just releasing as open source won't do. (That's why they didn't open source Google Reader. The source would have been both useless for running a Reader clone, and given away lots of trade secrets about Google infrastructure.)
- sudhirj 11y agoIsn't one of the features of AlphaGo that it trains one part of the AI while playing the game?
- malanj 11y agoIs running AlphaGo really that expensive? I get that training deep learning systems is very computationally expensive, but my understanding is that running them is orders of magnitude cheaper. edit: table showing gains as CPUs are added - https://i.imgur.com/xxdWUtV.png https://i.imgur.com/xxdWUtV.png
- joosters 11y agoIt's a huge cluster of machines.
- enneff 11y agoGot any numbers?
- jgrahamc 11y agoThe headline doesn't do justice to what he said. He actually said that he thinks after watching the current games he has a 60% chance of winning, but that AlphaGo will eventually beat him (perhaps in months, perhaps a few years). The headline makes it sound like he's being super-arrogant, but his actual words tell a very different story.
- masklinn 11y agoI can only agree, the headline is absolutely horrible, the actual quotes are way more nuanced and importantly expose downright eagerness to try himself against AlphaGo.
- enneff 11y agoHe's effectively saying as an outsider that he would have won the match just played. But he has no way of knowing that. It's easy to see mistakes from the outside. Seems like hubris to me.
- kqr 11y agoAlso it's very likely if the human played stronger in the last match, the computer also would have stepped up. Computers tend to sacrifice points (i.e. "big leads") for assured victory, so unless the human is stronger than the computer, you cannot know it's true potential.
- jacquesm 11y agoThat's a common strategy in human game play and sports as well. It has been observed many times that humans on their own in regular sports do much worse than doing the same in competition against a somewhat stronger party. As they say: one boat is a cruise, two boats, it's a race.
- xiaoma 11y agoTo be fair, he's 8-2 vs Lee Sedol head to head and he's only 19 years old.
- awwducks 11y agoFrom a go player's perspective, this would have been a more exciting match. Ke Jie is largely considered the strongest player in the world right now whereas Lee Sedol is marginally weaker but has better name recognition.
- awwducks 11y agoI'd very much like to see Ke Jie try (and also beat) Alphago while it appears to be in the realm of possibility.
- yiyus 11y agoThe question (as Ke Jie says, but the headline hides) is not if AlphaGo will beat him, but when. I was taught a computer would not beat a professional player in my life time. Now, there is maybe one player who can beat AlphaGo. I guess this won't be true for too long. When? That would be an interesting bet.
- cat-dev-null 11y agoExactly. Constrained (most games) AI singularity is near, because chess was just the start.
- studentrob 11y agoYou're reaching. Constrained AI singularity isn't a thing. It's singularity or it isn't. AI is definitely getting better, but it is all application specific. AI is not at the point of setting its own goals or fixing all of its errors. We still need humans for that.
- loup-vaillant 11y agoBah, replace "singularity" with "superhuman", and we're set. We have superhuman arithmeticians since the dawn of computing, superhuman chess players since Deep Blue or so, superhuman Go players and superhuman drivers are not too far off… Superhuman programmer with intelligence explosion capabilities… yeah, that's a whole 'nother game.
- studentrob 11y agoWhat's an intelligence explosion? Intelligence dissemination or deletion? EDIT: Nevermind, just looked it up and found this was a real thing. I thought you were joking.
- astrofinch 11y agoIt sounds less weird if you think: "AI has automated some jobs, and eventually it may automate away most of them, in the same way (pending AlphaGo victory) it's now automated winning at most board games... So what happens if the job of programmer gets automated away?" (I'm convinced that programmers will take the AI-automating-all-the-jobs idea more seriously once it's their own jobs that are on the line) There are a few ways I can think of to object to this line of reasoning: 1) You could argue that programming will be a job that never gets automated away. But this seems unlikely--previous intellectual tasks (Chess, Jeopardy, Go) were thought to be "essentially human", and once they were solved by computers, got redefined as not "essentially human" (and therefore not AI). My opinion: In the same way we originally thought tool use made humans unique, then realized that other animals use tools too, we'll eventually learn that there's no fundamental uniqueness to human cognition. It'll be matter & algorithms all the way down. Of course, the algorithms could be really darn complicated. But the fact the Deepmind team won at both Go and Atari using the same approach suggests the existence of important general-purpose algorithms that are within the reach of human software engineers. 2) You could argue that programming will be automated away but in a sense that isn't meaningful (e.g. you need an expensive server farm to replace a relatively cheap human programmer). This is certainly possible. But in the same way calculators do arithmetic much faster & better than humans do, there's the possibility that automated computer programmers will program much faster & better than humans. (Honestly humans suck so hard at programming https://twitter.com/bramcohen/status/51714087842877440 https://twitter.com/bramcohen/status/51714087842877440 that I think this one will happen.) And all the jobs that we've automated 'til now have been automated in this "meaningful" sense. Neither of these objections hold much water IMO, which is why I take the intelligence explosion scenario described by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom seriously: http://www.amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-Nick-Bostrom/dp/0199678111/ http://www.amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-N...
- zhte415 11y agoAnd Ke Jie was born in 1997. Wow.
- dosaygo 11y agoIt's on, seriously. Challenge accepted. I think what Ke is underestimating however, is that the computer's learning rate is better than a humans. Even if the computer is not in his game now, in a little while it will exceed him. Only a matter of time, Ke. Accept it.
- swang 11y agoIf you had read the article Ke pretty much says this.
- dosaygo 11y agoAHAHAHAHA. "pretty much", "had read" -- so you can read what others are doing across time and space? Riiiight. Moron. Why would I listen to someone whose joy comes from telling other people they were wrong on the internet. SO meaningful. hahaha. This is worth revisiting -- like the absolute idiocy of someone who assumes that if another person, wholly unlike themselves, had read the same article, then they would reach the same conclusion. Group think loser. I mean, that's your assumption, right? Hahahah. Flubbing moron. Hahaha.
- meric 11y agoAre you OK? You seemed like a cool guy in the who's hiring comment but in this thread you sound nuts. Look for help if you need it.
- meric 11y ago??? "According to the pace of AI's progress, it won't be long for AlphaGo to beat all human players, it may happen a few years later, even a few months later," added Ke.
- dosaygo 11y ago??? And? So from your point of view you just proved someone wrong on the internet, well done. If Ke actually appreciated this, he'd see there was no point to playing a computer. But I don't expect you to understand that...because then you'd have nothing to say " you were wrong " about. Whatever. Idiot.
- jiyinyiyong 11y agoHe was playing a joke in Weibo since Google is banned in mainland China. Not this "horrible" title :D
- studentrob 11y agoHah, that would be funny. AlphaGo can't beat him because Google can't go to China? Touché
- coldcode 11y agoI wonder if you jacked the game up to 23x23 or larger if the computer or the human would have more difficulty or if it would make no difference.
- hodwik 11y agoThe larger the board, generally, the harder for the computer to play it, because it can't just pre-calculate all of the possible games. Computers have been beating humans at 9x9 Wei Qi for quite a while, because they can calculate all possible games just like Chess. However, if Wei Qi machines are now being written to do pattern recognition, rather than move by move brute-forcing, it may be a different story entirely.
- sobellian 11y agoComputers cannot calculate all possible chess games. The game tree complexity of chess, 10^123, is greater than the number of atoms in the universe.
- redblacktree 11y agoThe problem space shrinks as the game develops though, so there does come a point where it is possible to calculate all possible moves/outcomes.
- sobellian 11y agoOf course, one can make the same argument about go. As I understand it computers are quite good at the endgame.
- fhe 11y agoHe's the generally agreed world's best player (and only 20-years-old). but he might not have seen the true strength of AlphaGo. After analyzing the games, it's apparent that AlphaGo only tries to win, and does not try to win by a large margin. Translate that strategy into game play, AlphaGo seems to always try to stay ahead of its opponent by a few points, and often trades an optimal move by a less-profitable one but one that's much safer. So even though the two games with Lee have been close, no one has any idea how strong AlphaGo really is.
- kerkeslager 11y agoI'd describe that a little differently: I think AlphGo's choosing safer moves shows strength. In go you don't get any extra credit for winning by more; a win by 0.5 is equivalent to a win by 50.5. As such there is no incentive to fight for wins at a higher margin. If a more aggressive move is riskier or harder to read (it usually is) there is actually a disincentive to play it. I can't tell you how many games I've lost because I misread a complicated variation which I could have avoided entirely when I was ahead.
- hodwik 11y ago>"I can't tell you how many games I've lost because I misread a complicated variation which I could have avoided entirely when I was ahead." Isn't that Go in a nutshell though.
- tyh 11y ago>"a win by 0.5 is equivalent to a win by 50.5 It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning's winning." Which reminds me of some wisdom from Dominic Toretto "It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning's winning."
- SixSigma 11y ago“The secret [to motor racing]”, said Niki Lauda, “is to win going as slowly as possible”
- deleted 11y ago
- scyclow 11y agoI really wonder who would bother reading this entire article and still find any value in the last line: > Go is a complex ancient Chinese mind game played on a board with a 19x19 grid of black lines.
- Zklsalue8 11y ago"Deep Blue is stupid, you know, it's a machine." Garry Kasparov before being defeated by Deep Blue.