4 ms·

Once 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 tremendou

by bronz 11y ago

Once 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 ago
Yes. 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 ago
  But AlphaGo isn't an enormous state machine ... is it?
  - Marazan 11y ago
    Well, it clearly is by being a computer program.
  - danmaz74 11y ago
    I 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.).
- chubot 11y ago
  Yeah, I think it's accurate to say that driving a car is harder in some sense than playing Go, based on the fact that the AI for Go came first. A lot of people have been working on self-driving cars for a long time now, and it's very monetizable, unlike Go.
  - hughperkins 11y ago
    To be fair, you're probably not going to drive around with 180GPUs in your trunk...
    - Aeolos 11y ago
      But does it play Crysis?
    - emcq 11y ago
      You're absolutely right. The power budget for these cars is more like 30 watts. A Tesla driving is around 240 watts per km or 14kw per hour at 60kmph. If you're okay reducing your range but half you could get a dozen beefy GPUs if the battery can support that kind of extended load.
  - chubot 11y ago
    Also, it should be noted that in Go, we're trying to beat the BEST human player, and have done so. In driving, we're just trying to be "good enough" or safe enough -- it doesn't have to be the safest driver in the world. Beating the average human Go player was probably accomplished decades ago, whereas it's not even clear if we're safer than the average human driver (under all conditions). These tasks are just wildly different, and yes I think it's basically all due to the fact that Go's state is so easily represented by a computer, and the goal is so concrete.
    - arstin 11y ago
      Sort of a tangent from the thread: I get the point about "good enough" at the moment, but I wonder if car AI really does need to perform much safer than any human driver before truly autonomous vehicles should be allowed to see widespread adoption. I'm thinking about the difficult problems re: legal and moral responsibility for human written/guided/trained programs like car AI. As well as the fact that, unlike in Go, real people's very lives are at stake in the program's successful performance. We already seem to have met the requirements for a research project---which is still unbelievable to me!---and I wonder how long the last leg will take.
ganwar 11y ago
Incredible 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.

by bronz 11y ago

codecamper 11y ago

Yes. 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 ago
But AlphaGo isn't an enormous state machine ... is it?
- Marazan 11y ago
  Well, it clearly is by being a computer program.
- danmaz74 11y ago
  I 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.).
chubot 11y ago
Yeah, I think it's accurate to say that driving a car is harder in some sense than playing Go, based on the fact that the AI for Go came first. A lot of people have been working on self-driving cars for a long time now, and it's very monetizable, unlike Go.
- hughperkins 11y ago
  To be fair, you're probably not going to drive around with 180GPUs in your trunk...
  - Aeolos 11y ago
    But does it play Crysis?
  - emcq 11y ago
    You're absolutely right. The power budget for these cars is more like 30 watts. A Tesla driving is around 240 watts per km or 14kw per hour at 60kmph. If you're okay reducing your range but half you could get a dozen beefy GPUs if the battery can support that kind of extended load.
- chubot 11y ago
  Also, it should be noted that in Go, we're trying to beat the BEST human player, and have done so. In driving, we're just trying to be "good enough" or safe enough -- it doesn't have to be the safest driver in the world. Beating the average human Go player was probably accomplished decades ago, whereas it's not even clear if we're safer than the average human driver (under all conditions). These tasks are just wildly different, and yes I think it's basically all due to the fact that Go's state is so easily represented by a computer, and the goal is so concrete.
  - arstin 11y ago
    Sort of a tangent from the thread: I get the point about "good enough" at the moment, but I wonder if car AI really does need to perform much safer than any human driver before truly autonomous vehicles should be allowed to see widespread adoption. I'm thinking about the difficult problems re: legal and moral responsibility for human written/guided/trained programs like car AI. As well as the fact that, unlike in Go, real people's very lives are at stake in the program's successful performance. We already seem to have met the requirements for a research project---which is still unbelievable to me!---and I wonder how long the last leg will take.

ganwar 11y ago

Incredible 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.