11 ms·

The 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 Alpha

The 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 ago
I 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 ago
He'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 ago
  Also 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 ago
    That'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 ago
  To be fair, he's 8-2 vs Lee Sedol head to head and he's only 19 years old.
  - enneff 11y ago
    He's great, to be sure, but only Sedol knows what it's like to be in this position. The pressure must be immense.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >Seems like hubris to me. I assumed that, since this has been in the news, he's promoting himself to be next in line to take on the computer. The purpose being the publicity and earnings associated with participating in an event like this (it's not often Go makes it into the mainstream media).
  - xiaoma 11y ago
    Matches have been regularly televised for decades.
- statsaresimple 11y ago
  This is very interesting. We have a way to test what he say. A match between the machine and this player with the game in the situation he describes. If he defeats the machine he proves that the machine game is nothing beyond our capabilities.
mtgx 11y ago
> but that AlphaGo will eventually beat him (perhaps in months, perhaps a few years I think that part is irrelevant because I think everyone knows that would be the case - that in a few months or years, the AI would exponentially improve.
- eru 11y ago
  The AI seems to be improving linearly, actually.
- wolfgke 11y ago
  Before you can talk about "exponentially improve" you first have to define what kind of scale you want to use.
  - rbanffy 11y ago
    It will be twice as fast for the same budget in about two years, maybe less. That'll allow it to better analyse outcomes. And it will continue improving at about the same rate for the next few years, at least. In the long term, meatware has no chance against it.
    - nacs 11y ago
      This is assuming the limitation is mostly processing power. From what I've read, more processing power would allow the AI to calculate possible outcomes for each move further into the future but that does not mean the AI's overall success rate will go up at the same rate.
  - adrianN 11y ago
    https://xkcd.com/605/ https://xkcd.com/605/
    - ant6n 11y ago
      Given the talk about scales, Was expecting this one: https://xkcd.com/271/ https://xkcd.com/271/
xiaq 11y ago
He said both, if you can read his posts on Weibo (rougly Chinese Twitter). And he said those two points in separate posts, so the headline quote not taking words out of context. It's Jie himself who used the clickbait strategy in the first place and the media happily followed :) Edit: I just looked up his Weibo, and it turns out that he said only what is quoted in the headline on Weibo; that deeper analysis was, presumably, from a later interview which he didn't post on Weibo at all. Also, I don't think it sounds super arrogant. The fact that AlphaGo beats someone beaten by Ke Jie 8 times out of 10 doesn't say enough about AlphaGo vs. Ke Jie. As Jie himself pointed out, eventually AlphaGo will be able to beat him, but claiming that it cannot do this now sounds pretty safe to me.
- philh 11y ago
  > The fact that AlphaGo beats someone beaten by Ke Jie 8 times out of 10 doesn't say enough about AlphaGo vs. Ke Jie. 8:2 implies the difference between them isn't so large. (If someone only beat me 8:2, I'd expect a professional to beat them 10:0.) Do we have any particular reason to think that AlphaGo would fall within that narrow skill band? E.g. if Google specifically challenged Lee, thinking that AG had just about passed his level. Alternatively by looking at the games and saying "Ke beat Lee by more than AG did, so Ke will beat AG as well". But many people have pointed out that AG doesn't optimize for winning by the greatest amount, so this probably isn't very informative. Alternatively if AG's playstyle is strong against Lee but weak against Ke. But could Ke know that? AG's only played against two high-profile opponents, if it can adapt its playstyle we won't have seen that in action.
  - kamakazizuru 11y ago
    "8:2 implies the difference between them isn't so large. (If someone only beat me 8:2, I'd expect a professional to beat them 10:0.)" Not sure I follow the logic here. They're both professionals, and one was much better than the other in the 10 games they played!
    - philh 11y ago
      My point is that 8:2 isn't much better. Not compared to the range of skills available. If someone beats me 8:2, that puts fairly strong bounds on their skill level, such that most players would either beat both of us or lose to both of us. Another way to look at it, if Ke beats Lee 8:2 then Lee-plus-four-stones probably beats Ke more than half the time. (I'm pretty confident about four stones; I suspect two or three would suffice.) Four stones is significant, but it's still a fairly narrow gap to say "I think AG falls within this skill range" until you've seen it lose a game.

masklinn 11y ago

I 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 ago

He'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 ago
Also 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 ago
  That'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 ago
To be fair, he's 8-2 vs Lee Sedol head to head and he's only 19 years old.
- enneff 11y ago
  He's great, to be sure, but only Sedol knows what it's like to be in this position. The pressure must be immense.
forgetsusername 11y ago
>Seems like hubris to me. I assumed that, since this has been in the news, he's promoting himself to be next in line to take on the computer. The purpose being the publicity and earnings associated with participating in an event like this (it's not often Go makes it into the mainstream media).
- xiaoma 11y ago
  Matches have been regularly televised for decades.
statsaresimple 11y ago
This is very interesting. We have a way to test what he say. A match between the machine and this player with the game in the situation he describes. If he defeats the machine he proves that the machine game is nothing beyond our capabilities.

mtgx 11y ago

> but that AlphaGo will eventually beat him (perhaps in months, perhaps a few years I think that part is irrelevant because I think everyone knows that would be the case - that in a few months or years, the AI would exponentially improve.

eru 11y ago
The AI seems to be improving linearly, actually.
wolfgke 11y ago
Before you can talk about "exponentially improve" you first have to define what kind of scale you want to use.
- rbanffy 11y ago
  It will be twice as fast for the same budget in about two years, maybe less. That'll allow it to better analyse outcomes. And it will continue improving at about the same rate for the next few years, at least. In the long term, meatware has no chance against it.
  - nacs 11y ago
    This is assuming the limitation is mostly processing power. From what I've read, more processing power would allow the AI to calculate possible outcomes for each move further into the future but that does not mean the AI's overall success rate will go up at the same rate.
- adrianN 11y ago
  https://xkcd.com/605/ https://xkcd.com/605/
  - ant6n 11y ago
    Given the talk about scales, Was expecting this one: https://xkcd.com/271/ https://xkcd.com/271/

xiaq 11y ago

He said both, if you can read his posts on Weibo (rougly Chinese Twitter). And he said those two points in separate posts, so the headline quote not taking words out of context. It's Jie himself who used the clickbait strategy in the first place and the media happily followed :) Edit: I just looked up his Weibo, and it turns out that he said only what is quoted in the headline on Weibo; that deeper analysis was, presumably, from a later interview which he didn't post on Weibo at all. Also, I don't think it sounds super arrogant. The fact that AlphaGo beats someone beaten by Ke Jie 8 times out of 10 doesn't say enough about AlphaGo vs. Ke Jie. As Jie himself pointed out, eventually AlphaGo will be able to beat him, but claiming that it cannot do this now sounds pretty safe to me.

philh 11y ago
> The fact that AlphaGo beats someone beaten by Ke Jie 8 times out of 10 doesn't say enough about AlphaGo vs. Ke Jie. 8:2 implies the difference between them isn't so large. (If someone only beat me 8:2, I'd expect a professional to beat them 10:0.) Do we have any particular reason to think that AlphaGo would fall within that narrow skill band? E.g. if Google specifically challenged Lee, thinking that AG had just about passed his level. Alternatively by looking at the games and saying "Ke beat Lee by more than AG did, so Ke will beat AG as well". But many people have pointed out that AG doesn't optimize for winning by the greatest amount, so this probably isn't very informative. Alternatively if AG's playstyle is strong against Lee but weak against Ke. But could Ke know that? AG's only played against two high-profile opponents, if it can adapt its playstyle we won't have seen that in action.
- kamakazizuru 11y ago
  "8:2 implies the difference between them isn't so large. (If someone only beat me 8:2, I'd expect a professional to beat them 10:0.)" Not sure I follow the logic here. They're both professionals, and one was much better than the other in the 10 games they played!
  - philh 11y ago
    My point is that 8:2 isn't much better. Not compared to the range of skills available. If someone beats me 8:2, that puts fairly strong bounds on their skill level, such that most players would either beat both of us or lose to both of us. Another way to look at it, if Ke beats Lee 8:2 then Lee-plus-four-stones probably beats Ke more than half the time. (I'm pretty confident about four stones; I suspect two or three would suffice.) Four stones is significant, but it's still a fairly narrow gap to say "I think AG falls within this skill range" until you've seen it lose a game.