13 ms·
> I could play my entire life and never achieve the level of play Lee Sedol has. AlphaGo surpassed that level in a matter of months. In one, very tiny area, su
by devishard 11y ago
> I could play my entire life and never achieve the level of play Lee Sedol has. AlphaGo surpassed that level in a matter of months.
In one, very tiny area, sure. But step outside the very specific task of playing winning moves in go, and Lee Sedol wins every time. AlphaGo can't explain its moves to someone learning go, let alone cognitive tasks we take for granted like moving feet in a way that produces transportation. AlphaGo can't even do things that other programs can do, like play chess.
Sure, you can "disrupt" with Monte Carlo algorithms like AlphaGo in the San Francisco startup sense of the word "disrupt", but that's also not new. AIs have been doing that for years in finance, genetics, chemistry. We've been able to write code that does one thing well for decades--what we lack is code with breadth of application, and AlphaGo doesn't even make a dent in that.
- Joeri 11y ago> AlphaGo can't explain its moves to someone learning go, let alone cognitive tasks we take for granted like moving feet in a way that produces transportation. I'm pretty sure lee sedol cannot explain his own moves either. Yes, he can rationalize why that move is a good move, but he won't be able to explain the complete reasoning process that led to that move, because it relies on intuition. He cannot train a random person to play at the level of lee sedol. If you look at the human brain, every part learns to do just one thing. Alphago is like having just the part of the brain that plays go. Moving from there to something more general is a question of assembling the parts. Building a biped robot that walks and plays go is not a hard problem. The fundamental question is whether us humans are more than the sum of our parts. If you add task-specific AI bits together, will you at some point have something that becomes a person, or will it always be a collection of features?
- gcp 11y agoI'm pretty sure lee sedol cannot explain his own moves either. Yes, he can rationalize why that move is a good move, but he won't be able to explain the complete reasoning process that led to that move, because it relies on intuition. He cannot train a random person to play at the level of lee sedol. I think you're wrong here. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case? The "intuition" just means he arrives at the move quickly without consciously going through the thought process, but why wouldn't he be able to reconstruct it?
- mateuszf 11y agoHe is right. It is a typical thing that masters can't explain why their actions are that good. That's because their brains are just neural networks which are trained by so many iterations of learning.
- partycoder 11y agoWell... - some said it wasn't possible - some said it would not happen this decade - some said it was strong but would lose against Lee Sedol Now people say it doesn't matter. What is next?