3 ms·

I appreciate the sentiment, but it's nothing that dramatic. The battle remains over. This just shows that the training process remains imperfect. It's a bit lik

I appreciate the sentiment, but it's nothing that dramatic. The battle remains over. This just shows that the training process remains imperfect. It's a bit like finding a bug.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
We know from math though that it’s impossible to prove there are no bugs. Maybe complicated systems will always have these types of exploits.
modeless 4y ago
I say if the adversarial strategy is learnable by human players (even if humans didn't invent it), then the battle isn't over yet. Especially if the same adversarial strategy works against most or all AI opponents. The battle is really over when there are no more adversarial strategies simple enough for humans to use.
- inimino 4y ago
  In chess, it is possible that humans and bots can both someday play perfectly, and every game will be a draw. (Young people might play chess until learning how to draw, and then move on.) For Go there is no such possible outcome, and deep reading (calculation) will always be in the machine's favor. The architecture of AlphaGo (policy and evaluation networks plus MCTS) is sufficient to recreate and surpass any kind of human-practical strategy. The era of human dominance in Go is simply over. Of course, current AI programs will never be perfect either, so there may continue to be such adversarial attacks, but they will necessarily become harder to use (and quickly impossible for humans). AI go programs probably have nearly infinite possibility to continue marginally improving against each other, though.
  - modeless 4y ago
    > The architecture of AlphaGo (policy and evaluation networks plus MCTS) is sufficient to recreate and surpass any kind of human-practical strategy This is an assertion without evidence. Leela Zero uses the architecture of AlphaGo and yet this guy just beat it with a human-practical strategy. I have no doubt that this can be fixed, but exactly how to fix it is not obvious and it may require more compute, and that's interesting.
    - inimino 4y ago
      Humans have two ways to pick a move: look at the board and pick a move based on the position (pattern matching, intuition, etc) and calculation (tree search). Machines can already do both better. That is my evidence. There isn't any room left in this process for some uniquely human ability.
- fjfaase 4y ago
  The interesting thing is that the adversarial strategy can be explained in a few sentences to any amateur Dan level player in a sufficient manner to use it successfully, assuming to be sufficiently strong. When learning to play Go, you go to a number of steps, where sometimes you have to unlearn something you learned in a previous step. I am a weak amateur player (around 10k) and I only have a vague idea about aji (taste in Japanese) and no idea what good aji and bad aji is. I even don't master life and death. When AIs started to beat professional Go players, it seemed that they had a good understanding of aji, because they created good aji and avoided bad aji. They also played a very balanced game, overseeing the whole board, something that non-professional players often fail to do, and now the adversary strategy reveals that the AIs do not even have a good understanding of life and death and even fall for 'tricks' that I would have been able to counter.
Madmallard 4y ago
This is wrong. It's the same reason why MOBA AIs get demolished by humans outside of extremely confined circumstances. The training space is much too large for the bots to handle every possible human strategy in games like MOBAs. So what happens is we just find weaknesses where they lacked training with non-standard strategy and we win. Reliably. Yes, the bots do not lose lane 1 versus 1 with no outside ememy involvement. But once you lift that constraint, we do not lose to the bots as high level players. And it's not like there's only a single exploit, there's many.
- inimino 4y ago
  I'm not sure why you started with "This is wrong" and then went on to talk about a completely different game? In any case, I'm not expert in MOBA AI, but they are much more complicated than go just as go is to chess. So it will take longer, but it's unlikely the long-term outcome will be any different as long as Google etc keep working on it.

I appreciate the sentiment, but it's nothing that dramatic. The battle remains over. This just shows that the training process remains imperfect. It's a bit like finding a bug.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

We know from math though that it’s impossible to prove there are no bugs. Maybe complicated systems will always have these types of exploits.

modeless 4y ago

I say if the adversarial strategy is learnable by human players (even if humans didn't invent it), then the battle isn't over yet. Especially if the same adversarial strategy works against most or all AI opponents. The battle is really over when there are no more adversarial strategies simple enough for humans to use.

inimino 4y ago
In chess, it is possible that humans and bots can both someday play perfectly, and every game will be a draw. (Young people might play chess until learning how to draw, and then move on.) For Go there is no such possible outcome, and deep reading (calculation) will always be in the machine's favor. The architecture of AlphaGo (policy and evaluation networks plus MCTS) is sufficient to recreate and surpass any kind of human-practical strategy. The era of human dominance in Go is simply over. Of course, current AI programs will never be perfect either, so there may continue to be such adversarial attacks, but they will necessarily become harder to use (and quickly impossible for humans). AI go programs probably have nearly infinite possibility to continue marginally improving against each other, though.
- modeless 4y ago
  > The architecture of AlphaGo (policy and evaluation networks plus MCTS) is sufficient to recreate and surpass any kind of human-practical strategy This is an assertion without evidence. Leela Zero uses the architecture of AlphaGo and yet this guy just beat it with a human-practical strategy. I have no doubt that this can be fixed, but exactly how to fix it is not obvious and it may require more compute, and that's interesting.
  - inimino 4y ago
    Humans have two ways to pick a move: look at the board and pick a move based on the position (pattern matching, intuition, etc) and calculation (tree search). Machines can already do both better. That is my evidence. There isn't any room left in this process for some uniquely human ability.
fjfaase 4y ago
The interesting thing is that the adversarial strategy can be explained in a few sentences to any amateur Dan level player in a sufficient manner to use it successfully, assuming to be sufficiently strong. When learning to play Go, you go to a number of steps, where sometimes you have to unlearn something you learned in a previous step. I am a weak amateur player (around 10k) and I only have a vague idea about aji (taste in Japanese) and no idea what good aji and bad aji is. I even don't master life and death. When AIs started to beat professional Go players, it seemed that they had a good understanding of aji, because they created good aji and avoided bad aji. They also played a very balanced game, overseeing the whole board, something that non-professional players often fail to do, and now the adversary strategy reveals that the AIs do not even have a good understanding of life and death and even fall for 'tricks' that I would have been able to counter.

Madmallard 4y ago

This is wrong. It's the same reason why MOBA AIs get demolished by humans outside of extremely confined circumstances. The training space is much too large for the bots to handle every possible human strategy in games like MOBAs. So what happens is we just find weaknesses where they lacked training with non-standard strategy and we win. Reliably. Yes, the bots do not lose lane 1 versus 1 with no outside ememy involvement. But once you lift that constraint, we do not lose to the bots as high level players. And it's not like there's only a single exploit, there's many.

inimino 4y ago
I'm not sure why you started with "This is wrong" and then went on to talk about a completely different game? In any case, I'm not expert in MOBA AI, but they are much more complicated than go just as go is to chess. So it will take longer, but it's unlikely the long-term outcome will be any different as long as Google etc keep working on it.