18 ms·
AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol 3-0 [video]
- wnkrshm 11y agoWhile he may not be number one in the Go rankings afaik, Lee Sedol will be the name in the history books: Deep Blue against Garry Kasparov, AlphaGo against Lee Sedol. Lots of respect to Sedol for toughing it out.
- theroof 11y agoIs anyone also asking themselves when they'll be able to play against this level of AI on their mobile phone? Or formulated differently: when will an "AlphaGo" (or equivalent) app appear in the play/app store? In 2 years? In 1 year? In 3 months?
- pixl97 11y agoWell, we can't answer that question at this point. We do know that the system is more powerful than a human, so the question becomes "How much hardware can we take away and still be better than the best". That sets the hardware floor we have to reach. The current answer is, still a long way off. With massive forecasts in GPU power over the next few years it may be reasonable for people to have desktops in their home with this kind of power possibly within a decade. I won't even give a timeline for phones because of the power requirements.
- tunichtgut 11y agoI think this is a good guess. 280 GPUs in a single Desktop. It will take at least 10 years. Perhaps longer given the restrictions (and huge problems) in further down scaling of the known silicon technology. GPUs are now at 28nm and the newest Intel CPUs on 14nm.
- ac29 11y agoNVIDIA is projecting 5-10x gains in Deep Learning performance out of their next generation hardware (Pascal) [1]. Might be sooner than you think. [1] http://techreport.com/news/27978/nvidia-pascal-to-feature-mixed-precision-mode-up-to-32gb-of-ram http://techreport.com/news/27978/nvidia-pascal-to-feature-mi...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- agildehaus 11y agoA version of AlphaGo that beat Fan Hui ran on a single machine, but a very beefy one (48 CPUs and 8 GPUs). Unless they can optimize it quite a bit, we won't be seeing this on a mobile phone anytime soon. Perhaps you'll be able to pay a good hourly rate for the cloud version.
- iopq 11y agoA mobile phone version will still trounce the current AIs like CrazyStone considering the single machine version is competitive with the cluster (can take some games off of it)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- niuzeta 11y agoImpressive work by Google research team. I'm both impressed and scared. This is our Deep Blue moment folks. a history is made.
- yulunli 11y agoThis seems to be more impressive than the Deep Blue moment. In 1996, Deep Blue didn't make it on the first try. Even in 1997, it has been a draw until the 6th game. Although AlphaGo has 2 games to go, the first three seem to be a clear victory.
- partycoder 11y agoFar more impressive than the Deep Blue moment. This time the computer did not win out of pure bruteforce. Deep Blue relied on an opening book and massive computational power to explore the game tree. After the opening it was pretty much on its own, bruteforcing moves. This technology used a neural network trained with hundreds of thousands of games which provided the pattern matching aspect, combined with the bruteforce move sequence reading, the montecarlo tree search... and 1200 CPUs + 600 GPUs.
- nikbackm 11y agoDeep Blue was the 259th most powerful supercomputer of its time, what might the corresponding placement of Alpha-Go be?
- dzdt 11y agoAlphaGo is using a 1920 cpu/ 280 gpu distributed setup for the Sedol games. One source reported the gpus are Nvidia K40. The gpus give a peak possible performance of 470 terraflops. That would put it somewhere in the middle of the Top500 list, similar to Deep Blue in its time. Note though that AlphaGo almost certainly uses single precision arithmetic -- for neural networks even single precision is overkill. Also the Top500 list is based on Linpack, which measures performance for computations that are pretty strongly interconnected across the different processors of the system. AlphaGo's Monte Carlo tree search problem is more embarrasingly parallel, with evaluation of different positions really being independent computations. It is much easier to make systems that can handle embarrasingly parallel loads than the highly interconnected loads handled by the top500 supercomputers. So even though the flops are comparable, the systems are not.
- pkrumins 11y ago-
- praptak 11y agoProbably 20 people submitted same link in a short time.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- scrollaway 11y agoIf, as you believe, this post was "assigned" points (which only HN staff can theoretically do), what do you believe you will achieve by flagging it?
- dang 11y agoAll the points came from regular upvotes. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11271815 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11271815 was indeed posted earlier. Unfortunately, youtu.be is banned because it is heavily favored by spammers. That's why that post didn't get seen. We've assigned that video to the current submission (using the canonical youtube.com URL) since it was posted without a link.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dwaltrip 11y agoAlphaGo won solidly by all accounts. This is an incredible moment. We are now in the post-humanity go era. The one solace was that Lee Sedol got his ko =) however, AlphaGo was up to the task and handled it well.
- mikhail-g-kan 11y agoInterestingly, I feel proud of AI, despite humans lost. It's the progress toward our end as classic human species
- jamornh 11y agoBased on all the commentaries, it seems that Lee Sedol was really not ahead during the game at any point during the game... and I think everybody has their answer regarding whether AlphaGo can perform in a Ko fight. That's a yes.
- awwducks 11y agoPerhaps the last big question was whether AlphaGo could play ko positions. AlphaGo played quite well in that ko fight and furthermore, even played away from the ko fight allowing Lee Sedol to play twice in the area. I definitely did not expect that. Major credit to Lee Sedol for toughing that out and playing as long as he did. It was dramatic to watch as he played a bunch of his moves with only 1 or 2 seconds left on the clock.
- hasenj 11y ago> as he played a bunch of his moves with only 1 or 2 seconds left on the clock. That's on purpose to make full use of time and think about the next move
- awwducks 11y agoAs a spectator, I was on the edge of my seat :) As a 3d amateur, I'm really curious about when he resigned. It really seemed like he was playing the position out to go for the win (or perhaps to see how AlphaGo would fare in ko). It didn't look like he was searching for a place to resign.
- jacobolus 11y agoThe AGA commentator (Cho Hyeyeon 9p, at https://www.youtube.com/c/usgoweb/ https://www.youtube.com/c/usgoweb/) had already been calling the game completely hopeless for Lee Sedol for nearly 2 hours at that point, estimating Lee down by at least 20–30 points before komi, unless by some miracle he could win the ko fight.
- yeukhon 11y agoRight, all about one or two wrong moves by AlphaGo. He still had a chance around the time Lee started to play the bottom of the board. But AlphaGo did not fall for the trick. I believed the English commentator said Lee could build a ladder but wasn't sure if he meant to say whether that technique would defeat AlphaGo or not.
- hasenj 11y agoSeems to be playing at super-human levels. I'm no where near a strong player but it seems like AlphaGo is far ahead of Lee Sedol.
- mathgenius 11y agoIt seems like in all three games, AlphaGo plays a thick move that looks a bit baffling to the commentators, but then miraculously those moves become hugely profitable somewhat later on in the game.
- tome 11y agoIs it possible that all of AlphaGo's strength is in these baffling moves? If humans played enough games against AlphaGo and discovered how to counter the baffling moves, is it plausible that AlphaGo's strength would be lost?
- hasenj 11y agoIt seems to me that AlphaGo's main strengths are: - It doesn't make mistakes due to pressure or fatigue; it's always playing at its sharpest - It can read deeper than humans can - It seems to have better judgement than most current professional players
- hughperkins 11y agono :)
- alphydan 11y agoWatching the game and the commentary there's an eerie sensation that AlphaGo is just going along playing the petty local games with Lee Sedol. It's very anthropocentric, but you could imagine AlphaGo saying "I could have crushed you from the start ... but I'll just play along and do that one move to give you the illusion that it was close". But maybe it could have 40 of those moves to play an incredibly confusing game for humans. I think giving the machine a big handicap against pros might reveal it's true colours ...
- hyperion2010 11y agoI really want to see how a team of humans would do against alpha-go with a 3 or 4 hour time limit.
- _snydly 11y agoYeah, if AlphaGO wins all 5, I'd next like to see some Blitz Go (if that's a thing).
- daveguy 11y agoBlitz go would be even more heavily favored toward AlphaGo. AG didn't spend more than 10 seconds or so per move until the meat of the midgame. Human pros were losing blitz chess long before they were losing long game chess.
- pmontra 11y agoA team of go players usually is not much stronger than the best player of the team. I won't be afraid of playing against a team of players a couple of stones weaker than me. None of them can come up with moves beyond their level so their strategy won't improve. They could get more accurate at reading and that's worth something.
- seanwilson 11y agoSuper interesting to watch this unfold. So what game should AI tackle next? I've heard imperfect information games are harder for AI...would the AlphaGo approach not work well for these?
- vok 11y agoTIS-100
- jonbaer 11y agoHassabis discusses some StarCraft here ... http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/10/11192774/demis-hassabis-interview-alphago-google-deepmind-ai http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/10/11192774/demis-hassabis-in... ... good interview.
- seanwilson 11y agoI read that too. It's interesting StarCraft is suggested instead of any classic board games. It sounds like Go is the pinnacle of board games then. Would StarCraft be the last game AI has to beat?
- dwaltrip 11y agoStarcraft is definitely up there. No-limit texas holdem poker is also very difficult. After that... then we have games that involve physical movement. Although I'm not sure what would be fair for strength & speed of robots vs humans. I'm imagining a team of robot soccer players, for example.
- 21 11y agoNo, after StarCraft they suggested 3D games (eg: Call of Duty, ...). Mind you, this is playing based on the pixels, not based on direct access to the game structures as bots do today. The from playing Call of Duty to controling a robot with a gun in the real world it's a small step :)
- JibberMeTimbers 11y ago
- Huhty 11y agoFull video will be available here shortly: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqYmG7hTraZA7v9Hpbps0QNmJC4L1NE3S https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqYmG7hTraZA7v9Hpbps0... (It also includes the videos of the first 2 matches)
- awwducks 11y agoI am really curious about the reviews from An Youngil 8p and Myungwan Kim 9p. The commentary by Redmond always tend to leave something to be desired.
- jonah 11y agoMyungwan Kim 9p and Cho Hyeyeon 9p's commentary on the American Go Association YouTube channel: Game 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZugVil2v4w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZugVil2v4w Game 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitoPhtGWJQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitoPhtGWJQ Game 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkyVB4Nm9ac https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkyVB4Nm9ac
- awwducks 11y agoThanks, jonah! I recall Andrew mentioning that Myungwan will be back to comment games 4 and 5?
- Yuioup 11y agoI really like the moments when Alpha-Go would play a move and the commentators would look stunned and go silent for a 1-2 seconds. "That was an unexpected move", they would say.
- starshadowx2 11y agoIn game 2 there was a point where Michael Redmond seemed to do a triple take and couldn't believe the move AlphaGo played.
- Yuioup 11y agoYeah they seem to forget that Alpha-Go is looking deep into the future. I have not read the Nature paper but I assume it's playing out possible moves way into the future. At some point it figured that the Ko fight at the bottom was already won. Hence that white move at the top which nobody saw coming. Another interesting moment was when Michael Redmond said "A human would typically not spend too much time thinking on this obvious move". This was the move on the right-hand side somewhere. What this tells me is that human players rush through some moves because they seem obvious but since Alpha-Go is a machine, it does not care about obvious and non-obvious. It's calculating the entire board through to the end and is not interested in "local fights".
- schoen 11y ago> I have not read the Nature paper but I assume it's playing out all possible moves. To some relatively small depth, right? I hear the estimate that all possible moves in a Go game probably can't be physically represented in the universe (unless we learn much more about the structure of games' evolution).
- dkopi 11y agoOne can only hope that in the final battle between the remaining humans and the robots, it won't be a game of Go that decides the fate of humanity.
- mzitelli 11y agoCongratulations to AlphaGo team, curious to see if Lee Sedol will be able to defeat it in the next matches.
- tim333 11y agoKind of a shame the tournament isn't closer.
- abecedarius 11y agoAs Eliezer Yudkowsky tweeted before the start, the chances were that, whoever won, they'd win by like 4-1 or 5-0. There was no strong reason to expect an even match.
- oneeyedpigeon 11y agoI think so too. I actually feel really bad for Lee Sedol if he loses 5-0.
- wagglycocks 11y agoThe avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
- oneeyedpigeon 11y agoLee Sedol will have his place in history, but it would be nice if it were as 'the last human to win a game of go against AI'.
- macintux 11y agoUnderstanding is a three-edged sword.
- partycoder 11y agoSome professionals labeled some AlphaGo moves as being unoptimal or slow. In reality, Alpha Go doesn't try to maximize its score, only its probability of winning.
- AndyNemmity 11y agoRight, but I think the initial concerns have been proven wrong in some respect. I think AlphaGo can accurately determine when a move in a local area doesn't significantly change the outcome and then just does something else for a different reason. AlphaGo has a higher willingness to go somewhere else, and I think that's the algorithm finding another path that is more helpful than the current one for 1 move. Humans have a tendancy to want to win the battle, or to get too focus in a local area. I think that's a way AlphaGo is coming up with an extra move here or there which is making a difference in the fight later.
- PeCaN 11y agoFrom watching it I'm almost inclined to say it maximizes its chances of not losing over necessarily winning.
- spicyj 11y agoSorry, but what's the difference?
- vehementi 11y agoThrough watching those few games, parent has deduced that AlphaGo prefers ties
- MichaelGG 11y agoWith komi at 6.5 or 7.5 there are no ties.
- oneeyedpigeon 11y agoYeah, isn't Lee Sedol playing with the same objective? It sounds like people are implying he's trying to thrash the AI. Or do they mean he can't help but have such an objective, subconsciously?
- starshadowx2 11y agoI'm very interested to see what the Google DeepMind team applies themselves to in the future.
- pmyjavec 11y agoThat's going to be getting to know even more about you and the probability of you clicking on an advertisement, stakeholder, shareholder profits!
- starshadowx2 11y agoI don't understand your comment.
- pmyjavec 11y agoI'm saying that thing is created for Google and it's shareholders and will ultimately be used to read your mind and sell you advertisements.
- pushrax 11y agoIt's important to remember that this is an accomplishment of humanity, not a defeat. By constructing this AI, we are simply creating another tool for advancing our state of being. (or something like that)
- partycoder 11y agoIt is not a tool if you can't control it. Politicians fool countries delivering empty promises about better health, education and security. A supraintelligent AI could promise making humans rich, healthy and powerful, to then break its promise and dominate the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_box https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_box
- landryraccoon 11y agoWell, it would have to have a motivation to do so. Evolution has put complex motivations into human beings for billions of years, self preservation being chief among them. Even if we put motivation for self preservation into an AI, we might not do as well as nature did, leaving the AI open to self destruction or shutdown by humans - simply because the AI has no motivation not to allow humans to turn it off. Human designers would do well to ensure that no super intelligent AI has any motivation for self preservation. Basically, why would an AI want to dominate the world? Humans would have to both very stupidly give the AI values that encourage it to dominate the world and very luckily (or unluckily) give it values that actually converge to a horrible outcome against human intentions by random chance (since the AI designers certainly won't be tuning the value set for that outcome).
- partycoder 11y agoYou forget the fact that a human can maliciously create an AI to compete with other humans.
- stephenboyd 11y ago> Basically, why would an AI want to dominate the world? Humans are going to program their AI's to try to make as much money as possible. Many corporations are already mindless and reckless amoral machines that relentlessly try to optimize profits despite any externalities. Try to imagine Exxon, Wal-Mart, and Amazon run by an intelligence beyond human understanding or accountability.
- partycoder 11y agoI don't think Ke Jie would win against Alpha Go either.
- pmontra 11y agoI agree. Lee lost a title 3-2 to Ke Je recently but he lost very convincingly against AlphaGo. Ke Je is not that stronger than Lee. He's going to lose too but he's 18 so I understand that he's feeling he can do anything. My feeling is that AlphaGo could be a couple of stones stronger than the best pros. Considering that dans are capped at 9 but there are 9 dans that always win against some other 9 dans, the best pros could be 10 dan on their scale. That would also be 10 dan on the amateur scale (European, Americans are usually one stone gentler and Japanese much more than that). AlphaGo could be 12d amateur or, don't know, 14-15 dan pro? (pro levels are on a finer scale)
- oneeyedpigeon 11y agoDo you know what the current limit is on a handicap that a professional player can overcome? Is there a known theoretical limit? That's a possible 'endgame' for go ai.
- MichaelGG 11y agoI'm not sure I'm understanding correctly but I believe some pros have done demonstrations against weaker amateurs (15k?) with something like 25 stones. Yes it'd be fun to see AlphaGo take pros with huge handicaps. And even inside handicaps there's alternatives. Like free placements vs just on star points. AlphaGo against a pro that starts with two stones in each corner could be neat. At some point I'd imagine the pro associations might balk at such games though.
- pmontra 11y agoThere must be some limit because the number of the possible moves is finite. How many handicap stones the current professionals are from that limit... who knows. Apparently AlphaGo could set a better lower limit but it should play with many more pros, and start giving handicap if needed. I wonder if Google will make it available to pros outside these official matches. It's not that Deep Blue played so much after winning with Kasparov in 1997, right? Kasparov asked a rematch and IBM refused. Deep Blue never played again. Our computers are stronger than it now, mainly thanks to advances in the algorithms. Deep Blue used to crunch many more positions per second than the current chess engines do on standard PC. Still they're stronger. AlphaGo is running on 1920 CPUs and 280 GPUs, so either research trims down its algorithms or we wait for CPUs with 1024 cores. But at the current size they won't fit below the keyboard of a laptop :-)
- eemax 11y agoWhat happens if you give the human player a handicap? I wonder if the games are really as close as the commentators say, or if it's just a quirk of the MCST algorithm.
- ConbrastanJorji 11y agoThe great go champion Otake Hideo famously said that if he were to play go against God Himself, he would take only a three stone handicap, and if his life depended on it, he would take four. Alphago's not perfect, but it would still be very interesting to watch such a handicapped game.
- pgodzin 11y agoCan it even play a handicapped game? I'm assuming the handicap means the other play can begin with several stones on the board. AlphaGo would have no training on such a configuration and would likely not know how to approach it.
- NolF 11y agoWell the same thing was mentioned about Kos and game three showed that AlphaGo was very effective by both having few Ko threats and playing them when imperative. It also demonstrated effective gameplay as black with 4.4 & 4.3 opening. Considering the large training data set, handicap games would certainly be included. It's a great way to test aggressiveness and the effectiveness to reduce the opponents' territory whilst building your own. As an amateur, handicap games where you try to overcome 3 or 4 stones are some of the most educational experiences. It requires a lot more creative thinking and perseverance to come back from such a disadvantage.
- jonah 11y agoCho Hyeyeon 9p's commentary on the American Go Association YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkyVB4Nm9ac https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkyVB4Nm9ac
- awwducks 11y agoI guess the next question on my mind is how AlphaGo might fare in a blitz game.
- yeukhon 11y agoI wonder what if you put the top 10 players in a room, team up and play with Alpha-Go. They are allowed to make one move within a 1-hour period and they can only play up to 8 hours a day. I wonder what the outcome would be. Anyway, I think AlphaGo is a great training companion. I think Lee felt he's learning. Finally, I also feel that while experience is crucial, the older generation would flush out by the younger generation every decade. I wonder if age really play a role in championship - not that AlphaGo isn't considered a 1000 years old "human" given it has played thousands of games already.
- flyingbutter 11y agoThe Chinese 9 Dan player Ke Jie basically said the game is lost after around 40 mins or so. He still thinks that he has a 60% chance of winning against AlphaGo (down from 100% on day one). But I doubt Google will bother to go to China and challenge him.
- Radim 11y agoChallenging Ke Jie is way too small a goal for DeepMind at this point. I wonder if even the idea from the AGA stream today, to get all the best pros in the world together and challenge AlphaGo as a team, is enough. Perhaps releasing the core AlphaGo as open source (to the extent it's not dependent on internal Google machinery), or at least publishing its trained model, may be the next step. Let people "challenge themselves" however they want. EDIT: Also, Lee Sedol had his time in the sun, but commiserations to Ke Jie. He's just 19, already number #1 in the world, his whole career in front of him... and this happens.
- nkurz 11y agoI wonder if even the idea from the AGA stream today, to get all the best pros in the world together and challenge AlphaGo as a team, is enough. Has this been tried? That is, have Players 2-9 (or some subset) ever competed as a group against a dominant Player 1? Unless it's been tested, I wouldn't take it for granted that a group would beat an individual.
- abecedarius 11y agoI wouldn't know, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_the_World happened in chess. > He later said, "It is the greatest game in the history of chess. The sheer number of ideas, the complexity, and the contribution it has made to chess make it the most important game ever played."
- Radim 11y agoSure. Check out the "game of the century". There Go Seigen, the genius who brought about the Go revolution that Redmond talked about at post-game conf today, was beaten by Honinbou Shusai + his students. Also, "lesser" pros routinely call out mistakes in master games (and the masters agree). Games are often decided by easily avoidable mistakes, even at the highest level.
- bronz 11y agoOnce again, I am so glad that I caught this on the live-stream because it will be in the history books. The implications of these games are absolutely tremendous. Consider GO: it is a game of sophisticated intuition. We have arguably created something that beats the human brain in its own arena, although the brain and AlphaGO do not use the same underlying mechanisms. And this is the supervised model. Once unsupervised learning begins to blossom we will witness something that is as significant as the emergence of life itself.
- codecamper 11y agoYes. We will witness the birth of Marvin the Android.
- danmaz74 11y ago> Consider GO: it is a game of sophisticated intuition It's still a game that can be described in terms of clear state-machine rules. The real challenge for AI is making sense and acting in the real world, which can't be described in such way. I consider advances in self-driving cars much more interesting in that sense - even if, even there, there are at least some rule-based constraints that can be applied to simplify the representation of the "world state".
- oneeyedpigeon 11y agoBut AlphaGo isn't an enormous state machine ... is it?
- Marazan 11y agoWell, it clearly is by being a computer program.
- danmaz74 11y agoI wasn't talking about the implementation, but about the problem space. Anyway Marazan already pointed that out, but any computer system is a state machine, with 2^N states where N is the number of bits the machine can flip anywhere in its system (RAM, registries, disk, etc.).
- Radim 11y agoIn a recent interview [1], Hassabis (DeepMind founder) said they'd try training AlphaGo from scratch next, so it learns from first principles. Without the bootstrapping step of "learn from a database of human games", which introduce human prejudice. As a Go player, I'm really excited to see what kind of play will come from that! [1] http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/10/11192774/demis-hassabis-interview-alphago-google-deepmind-ai http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/10/11192774/demis-hassabis-in...
- awwducks 11y agoThat would be amazing if it could achieve the same levels (or higher) without the bootstrapping. The niggling thought in my mind was that AlphaGo's strength is built on human strength.
- radicalbyte 11y agoHuman strength is also "built on human strength" so I don't see the problem? :)
- sleepychu 11y agoIt's not truly artificial if it's using a human playbook. (Is the problem posed by the parent, I believe.)
- Barrin92 11y agoWhat is 'truly artificial'? Neural networks are modeled after biological systems to begin with, I don't the that's a meaningful concept at all.
- andreyf 11y agoTruly artificial means not using meatspace metaphors for reasoning like human players do.
- niels_olson 11y ago
- Eliezer 11y agoMy (long) commentary here: https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154018209759228 https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154018209759228 Sample: At this point it seems likely that Sedol is actually far outclassed by a superhuman player. The suspicion is that since AlphaGo plays purely for probability of long-term victory rather than playing for points, the fight against Sedol generates boards that can falsely appear to a human to be balanced even as Sedol's probability of victory diminishes. The 8p and 9p pros who analyzed games 1 and 2 and thought the flow of a seemingly Sedol-favoring game 'eventually' shifted to AlphaGo later, may simply have failed to read the board's true state. The reality may be a slow, steady diminishment of Sedol's win probability as the game goes on and Sedol makes subtly imperfect moves that humans think result in even-looking boards... The case of AlphaGo is a helpful concrete illustration of these concepts [from AI alignment theory]... Edge instantiation. Extremely optimized strategies often look to us like 'weird' edges of the possibility space, and may throw away what we think of as 'typical' features of a solution. In many different kinds of optimization problem, the maximizing solution will lie at a vertex of the possibility space (a corner, an edge-case). In the case of AlphaGo, an extremely optimized strategy seems to have thrown away the 'typical' production of a visible point lead that characterizes human play...
- taneq 11y agoThis is reminding me more and more of the central theme of the book Echopraxia, which was that when dealing with superhuman intelligences, you are by definition not smart enough to even know whether you're winning.
- studentrob 11y agoHmm maybe but aren't humans capable of learning too? One could make the same statement of two humans of different ranks playing each other. In some cases, the more highly ranked player might be the only one who knows who's winning. This doesn't mean that the lesser ranked player can't improve over time. It just means that at that moment, that player is inexperienced or less skilled, which we already knew.
- 11y ago
- dynjo 11y agoHow long before AlphaGo also participates in the post-match press conference I wonder...
- Jach 11y agoIn the first press conference I was half expecting that Google would translate and speak the Korean for the livestream, and not even point it out as a very big deal. If anyone asks, it's just an "oh yeah, we solved that problem ages ago." But more seriously, those translators were very good, they didn't seem troubled at all by the long speeches.
- zhouyisu 11y agoNext move: how about beating human at online dating?
- femto113 11y agoPretty sure that's already been done http://gizmodo.com/how-ashley-madison-hid-its-fembot-con-from-users-and-in-1728410265 http://gizmodo.com/how-ashley-madison-hid-its-fembot-con-fro...
- gandalfu 11y agoOptimizing your chances at online dating? Done: http://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/ http://www.wired.com/2014/01/how-to-hack-okcupid/
- xuesj 11y agoThis is a milestone of AI in history. The ability of AlphaGo is amazing and far beyond to human.
- tunichtgut 11y agoI dont know if AlphaGo is "beyond" all human players. Given AlphaGo has learned all played games from a database, its more like AlphaGo is the essence or the sum of all experience gained from those games played. AlphaGo is better than every player (perhaps), but it has not pushed the game further by itself.
- daveguy 11y agoNot all games came from a database. It was initialized with a database. It has played millions of games against itself to improve beyond that. Next they will skip the bootsrap initialization and use all self play.
- ptbello 11y agoDoes anyone have insights on how a game between two Alpha-Gos would play out?
- vl 11y agoOne would win and another loose. It plays itself all the time to train.
- arek_ 11y agoI was using machine learning in computer chess some time ago. My commentary: http://arekpaterek.blogspot.com/2016/03/my-thoughts-on-alphago.html http://arekpaterek.blogspot.com/2016/03/my-thoughts-on-alpha...
- bainsfather 11y agoIt is interesting how fast this has happened compared to chess. In 1978 chess IM David Levy won a 6 match series 4.5-1.5 - he was better than the machine, but the machine gave him a good game (the game he lost was when he tried to take it on in a tactical game, where the machine proved stronger). It took until 1996/7 for computers to match and surpass the human world champion. I'd say the difference was that for chess, the algorithm was known (minimax + alpha-beta search) and it was computing power that was lacking - we had to wait for Moore's law to do its work. For go, the algorithm (MCTS + good neural nets + reinforcement learning) was lacking, but the computing power was already available.
- gandalfu 11y agoIts a matter of language. Our model of representation of Go fails at expressing the game/strategies of AlphaGo is showing, we are communicating in the board in different languages, no wonder everyone looking the at games is stomped by the machine "moves". Our brains lack the capacity of implementing such algorithms (understanding such languages), but we can still create them. We might see in the future engine A played against engine B and enjoy the matches. No one is surprised by a machine doing a better job with integer programming/operational research/numerical solutions etc.
- Queribus 11y agoStrictly speaking, "just" because Alphago finally won, that doesnt mean it was right when claiming being ahead already.
- atrudeau 11y agoIt would be nice if AlphaGo emitted the estimated probability of it winning every time a move is made. I wonder what this curve looks like. I would imagine mistakes by the human opponent would give nice little jumps in the curve. If the commentary is correct, we would expect very high probability 40-60 minutes into the game. Perhaps something crushing, like 99,9%
- Symmetry 11y agoIt did, apparently. I wish that information was public. http://www.nature.com/news/the-go-files-ai-computer-wins-first-match-against-master-go-player-1.19544 http://www.nature.com/news/the-go-files-ai-computer-wins-fir... For me, the key moment came when I saw Hassabis passing his iPhone to other Google executives in our VIP room, some three hours into the game. From their smiles, you knew straight away that they were pretty sure they were winning – although the experts providing the live public commentary on the match that was broadcast to our room weren’t clear on the matter, and remained confused up to the end of the game just before Lee resigned. (I'm told that other high-level commentators did see the writing on the wall, however).
- oliebol 11y agoWatching this felt like watching a funeral where the commentary was the eulogy.
- eternalban 11y agoMy impression is that Sedol was psychologically defeated at 1-0. Computational machines don't crack under pressure - at most they get exhausted.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- asdfologist 11y agoKe Jie's gonna be next. http://www.shanghaidaily.com/national/AlphaGo-cant-beat-me-says-Chinese-Go-grandmaster-Ke-Jie/shdaily.shtml http://www.shanghaidaily.com/national/AlphaGo-cant-beat-me-s... "Demis Hassabis, Google DeepMind's CEO, has expressed the willingness to pick Ke as AlphaGo's next target."
- asmyers 11y agoDoes anyone know if the AlphaGo team is saving the probability of winning assignments that AlphaGo gave its moves? It would be fascinating to see how early AlphaGo assigned very high probability of it winning. It would also be interesting to see if there were particular moves which changed this assignment a lot. For instance, are there moves that Lee Sedol made for which the win probability is very different for the AlphaGo moves before and after?
- bricemo 11y agoIn the introduction to the third match, the project lead talked about how Alphago evaluated the controversial 37th move in the second match. Apparently the policy network decided that it had a one in 10,000 chance of a human making that move, But the value network overrode this. So it seems like they are recording this kind of data and looking at it in cases where it's interesting.
- asmyers 11y agoThanks, I'm only just watching match 2 and hadn't seen that. I really hope they publish this data. It would be incredibly interesting to construct a "review of the game by AlphaGo" from this data.
- yodsanklai 11y agoAll this excitement makes me want to learn a little bit about those algorithms. I don't know anything about neural networks (but I've already implemented a chess game a while ago). Would it be difficult to implement a similar algorithm for a simpler game?
- cpeterso 11y agoDoes AlphaGo run in the cloud or is it a machine onsite at the match? I wonder how small AlphaGo could be scaled down and still beat Lee Sedol. How competitive would AlphaGo be running on an iPhone? :)
- ganwar 11y agoIncredible news. We have all heard all of the positive coverage and how tremendous it is. What I find interesting is that how come nobody is talking about the potential of AlphaGo as a war strategizing AI? If you provide terrain(elevation etc.) information, AlphaGo can be used to corner opponents into an area surrounded by mountains where AlphaGo is sitting on the mountains. We all know what happens after that. Don't want to kill the party but I am completely surprised with the lack of chatter in this direction.
- Gambit89 11y agoThis is because of ethical reasons: one of the conditions that Deepmind made with Google in their deal was for an "embargo on using its technology for military and intelligence applications." Source: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/16/demis-hassabis-artificial-intelligence-deepmind-alphago http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/16/demis-hass...
- jcyw 11y agoWe had Godel on the limitation of logic and Turing on the limitation of computation. I think AI will only change the way human calls intelligence. We used to call people who can mentally calculate large numbers genius. Lots of that has to be re-defined.
- skarist 11y agoWe are indeed witnessing and living a historic moment. It is difficult not to feel awestruck. Likewise, it is difficult not to feel awestruck at how a wet 1.5 kg clump of carbon-based material (e.g. Lee Sedol brain) can achieve this level of mastery of a board game, that it takes such an insane amount of computing power to beat it. So, finally we do have a measure of the computing power required to play Go at the professional level. And it is immense, or to apply a very crude approximation based on Moore's law, it requires about 4096 times more computing power to play Go at the professional level than it does to play chess. Ok, this approx may be a bit crude :) But maybe this is all just human prejudice... i.e. what this really goes to show is that in the final analysis all board games we humans have inveted and played are "trival", i.e. they are all just like tic-tac-toe just with a varying degree of complexity.
- kotach 11y agoChess can be played godlike on a smartphone. Result of years of refining algorithms. Same could probably be accomplished with Go.
- ChuckMcM 11y agoI don't think it is human prejudice, Deepmind can play Go and it cannot drive a car, Lee Sedol's brain can do both. Understanding the nature of cognition will open up new capabilities just as understanding the nature of genetics will open up new capabilities or understanding the nature of the cosmos Etc. What is most interesting for me is that the nature of solving the problem "how do I win at Go?" is one that has not been, historically, one that computers could solve. Compute the ballistic trajectory of an artillery shell? Easy. Compute a winning strategy on the fly? Impossible. But by creating tools that allow computers to work on those problems we open up the things that can be improved and automated and that has historically improved the experience.
- skarist 11y agoI wholeheartedly agree. I just had a "we feeble humans" moment when I made my comment about our prejudice. And as you point out Sedol's brain can of course do a lot more than just play Go. So, my feeling of feebleness on behalf of humanity was thoroughly unfounded! In fact, it can be argued that our brains are probably too powerful computers for our own good. But who knows, maybe things will conspire and turn us into seals living of some obscure beach on the Galápagos in about a million years. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal%C3%A1pagos_%28novel%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal%C3%A1pagos_%28novel%29)
- kybernetikos 11y agoGo was the last perfect information game I knew where the best humans outperformed the best computers. Anyone know any others? Are all perfect information games lost at this point? Can we design one to keep us winning?
- eli_gottlieb 11y agoWhy bother? It's working with radically incomplete and imperfect information where the core of human intelligence actually lies.
- kybernetikos 11y ago> Why bother? Because the process might tell us something interesting and useful about AI and ourselves.
- mrob 11y agoI know of one attempt to design such a game: Arimaa. Playable on a chess board, Arimaa has an even bigger game tree than Go. It's a great game, and fun to play, but as an anti-computer design it has recently failed. There has been an annual humans vs computers challenge match every year since 2004, and in 2015 computers won with David Wu's software "Sharp". Despite the very high branching factor, standard chess AI techniques turned out to be applicable when combined with high quality hand written heuristics for positional evaluation and candidate move generation. The software is described in detail here: http://icosahedral.net/downloads/djwu2015arimaa_color.pdf http://icosahedral.net/downloads/djwu2015arimaa_color.pdf
- pmyjavec 11y agoIf one allowed AlphaGo to train forever, what would happen? Would it constantly just tie against itself ?
- Queribus 11y agoWas I in a "prophetic mode" yesterday? ;)))