Slashdot Mirror
Google's AlphaGo Beats Lee Se-dol In the First Match (theverge.com)
New submitter Fref writes with news from The Verge that "A huge milestone has just been reached in the field of artificial intelligence: AlphaGo, the program developed by Google's DeepMind unit, has defeated legendary Go player Lee Se-dol in the first of five historic matches being held in Seoul, South Korea. Lee resigned after about three and a half hours, with 28 minutes and 28 seconds remaining on his clock. "
Lee will face off against AlphaGo again tomorrow and on Saturday, Sunday, and Tuesday. Also at the New York Times. Science magazine says the loss may be less significant than it seems at first.
Lee will face off against AlphaGo again tomorrow and on Saturday, Sunday, and Tuesday. Also at the New York Times. Science magazine says the loss may be less significant than it seems at first.
This is a great accomplishment for A.I., but it's likely he will rebound from this opening round loss.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
But not nearly a milestone such as the first Chess grandmaster win or the Jeopardy win.
I would like to see how well the computer does at Diplomacy with its complex negotiations.
No doubt the AI singularity will come, but we aren't even close yet.
Tic Tac Toe. A computer can never beat me at Tic Tac Toe. Of course, given a good enough computer, I'll never beat it at Tic Tac Toe either.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Eventually of course computers will best us at everything.
After all, we are just computers made out of meat.
It would be pretty arrogant to presume that 80 kilograms of meat is the ultimate intelligence in the universe.
A computer will never beat us at offline interpretation of literature. Well at least not for a long time.
Umm, be careful about that. Topic modeling is a thing, and even if it and similar techniques are only useful right now for digesting large amounts of text I suspect we'll see interesting improvements in the next decade or two.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Are there any classic games left where humans have a marked advantage over computers ?
Non-Linux Penguins ?
It's not hard to play a game.
Well, that's up for debate. Go is arguably the hardest game to play (and master) there is.
Sure. The nuance of literature is not overly binary. Most AI attempts at parsing phrases are little more than workarounds. Actual Intelligence in computing is at its earliest stages. Do I predict that one day a computer will be able to give compelling interpretations of a text ... YES... However not in isolation from internet reviews or a data pool of prior interpretations to parse with a markov engine...
Tag?
Science magazine says the loss may be less significant than it seems at first.
Err, no, not really. It's still has about the same significance as it first seemed to me.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
5-10 years ago the news like this would have triggered 1000-1500 comments, but now just few dozens.
Within the first 25 minutes after the submission, sure.
Goodbye AC, we won't miss you, nor your alleged 5-digit uid account.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
The only winning move is not to play.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
"Go is arguably the hardest game to play (and master) there is."
Hardly. Try Diplomacy some time. Complex negotiation and justifying back-stabbing,
If the computer disdains or is incompetent at unstructured negotiation with other players,
let's see how long it will last with the players ganged up against it.
Machine learning techniques work well with incomplete and noisy data, so they would work well even when there are occasional failures in some nodes.
Clearly *you* my friend have never played Bamboozled! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
Whats significant here isn't that it beat him in the first round, or that it may win, but that if it wins, it will be a remarkable achievement because the method is not the same one that was used to beat kasparov or used by deep blue to beat players in jeopardy. It is in a more general purpose algorithm that is being used. This system is actually learning.
Well, that's up for debate. Go is arguably the hardest game to play (and master) there is.
Hex (a.k.a. Con-tac-tix or Nash) is a very subtle and interesting game. Programs still can't beat the best human Hex players. DeepMind's CEO was quoted in the NYTimes today saying, "Really, the only game left after chess is Go". I wish reporters knew to ask him, "What about Hex?"
Are there any classic games left where humans have a marked advantage over computers ?
Hex. It has neither a centuries-long tradition nor a large player base, but many of us who have learned the game consider it classic in the sense of having great depth and beauty. There is active work on Hex programs and they are still far behind the best human players.
We keep hearing about 'AI this' and 'AI that', but by my standards there is no such thing. I can't sit down with a computer, have a conversation, and for one second feel like I'm talking to the intellectual equivalent (or better) of a human being, therefore there's been no such thing an 'artificial intelligence' as of yet. All we've got are so-called 'expert systems', which at best mimick a human being's ability to think -- but only on specific subjects. Even so-called 'machine learning' is a far cry from actual sentience. Honestly, media people, can we get that straightened out?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I respectfully disagree.
Diplomacy with it's self-references and multi-body perturbations is closer to a set of non-linear partial differential equations whose solution is extremely difficult and idiosyncratic and chaotic.
Ever had a disagreement with someone who is basing their behavior upon yours, who in turn is basing their behavior upon theirs? Now add as many as five more players, all intertwining their interactions with yours over time. We are not talking here about enumerating numerical solutions to nice set of equations, either. We are talking about inputs including revenge, boredom, capriciousness, contrariness.
Basically Chess and Go are nerfed versions of real world problems that humans have learned to deal with pretty well.
Even humans have significant problems with these cicular and self-referential domains, see R.D. Laing's book Knots, for example.
Is there a link to the actual game played ? The pgn file, for example ? Would be curious to see the actual moves.
I've been reading this site for over a decade. Very few topics (relative to total stories) ever eclipsed 1000 comments.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Go is arguably the hardest game to play (and master) there is.
No. Try human copulation.
Wha'? That's as simple as a baby toy shapes. Which only makes it more fun.
The fact that there's so little rule makes the game harder for computer. And the possibility of play is many order of magnitude harder than chess.
I can't find anywhere what hardware is used in the game, and also what hardware was used for training.
I assume it's a cluster of computers talking to each other, writing down trees of possible moves (to RAM, but still writing down), after they have played more games than a single human could in their lifetime against one human brain who is not allowed to talk to other players and has only seen a small fraction of games the AI version has.
Yes, computers with enough resources to compute numerous trees will win. But human brain is still more creative. And incredible, considering how much it can do on a much smaller sample of data and ridiculously small short term memory (sth like 7-10 items only!)
They could expand upon the principles of winning at Rock-Scissors-Paper to win at Tag. And as another poster has pointed out, they're already pretty good when drones are involved. Or laser turrets.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
"The Game".
See? They've already lost.
They already have. God's kind of an idiot.
I found other sources much less categorical (the like of: "first player has demonstrably an advantage, but the winning strategy cannot be computed"), so feel free to fix the article (with sources).
Your quote from Wikipedia and the one in quotes are in complete agreement. It would be difficult to fix it.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Here's a talk by deepmind about this AI https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They can already win at Pong too.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I am still waiting for a computer who can recognize my bags at a conveyor belt at least as efficiently as me
I've worked with industrial vision devices in the past and trust me, you could set up a machine to recognize luggage as efficiently as a human being today if you wanted to. In fact, it will do better.
The only thing surprising about the Go event is that it did not happen like ten, or even twenty, years ago. You may be impressed, but I find this most underwhelming.
That's likely because you don't understand what it involves. Go is unlike chess in the sense that just throwing raw computing power at the problem won't help you at all; for a "small" 13x13 there are over 10^300 valid game trees to compute, and the number gets exponentially worse once the board increases in size. For reference, the estimated number of atoms in the universe is 10^130.
Google's AlphaGo engine is an actual machine-learning AI which had to be trained plays the game much like a regular person would - Myungwan Kim actually remarked that it feels like playing against a human being. Having a competitive Go engine today is a major milestone, make no mistake about it.
Some games were designed to deny the computer's advantage over humans, these would be Arimaa and Octi. I understand the former has indeed been defeated by the machines by now. The latter, Octi, probably survives because it is such an obscure game.
Are there any classic games left where humans have a marked advantage over computers ?
obligatory: Game AIs
In game design theory, the kinds of politics you describe is normally treated as a form of luck - and as such it makes determining "who is better at this game" a meaningless question. If 3 random people are playing Risk against the best Risk player in the world (the person who understands the game the best), there's a rational argument that their best strategy is to co-operate and eliminate him first (no matter what he does or says or how he behaves). This sort of interaction effectively decouples skill from game success.
This is also why modern game design has generally abandoned games with lots of politics - they effectively all become the same game, and that game is really uninteresting after a while.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Alphabet's AlphaGo.
I see no reason to believe this game wouldn't fall to serious effort (ie. computers would surpass human players if a good team made a large effort as has been made here with Go). Rather, I think there's many reasons to believe it would be much easier to reach that point. The game state is much clearer and much more amenable to search than Go is, and the game doesn't have the kinds of complicating factors that would make me think of it as a "hard game" for computers to play (eg. hidden information, simultaneous action selection, broad ranges of choices, deeply "non-local" interactions). The game has interesting properties, but none of those seem relevant to the task at hand, other than that they suggest the game probably isn't a tough one for computers to play well (eg. the fact that 9x9 boards have an explicit winning strategy).
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Yes, a strategy for perfect Hex play is difficult to find (known to be a PSPACE-complete problem). Hex (on large-sized boards like 19x19) is like Go in that we approach it with heuristics because finding a perfect solution is intractable. In practice, both Go and Hex have rules to put both players on closer to an even footing (komi in Go, the "pie rule" (a.k.a. swap) in Hex).
It's not hard to play a game.
Well, that's up for debate. Go is arguably the hardest game to play (and master) there is.
It still follows very fixed rules.
Lee's defeat at Go doesn't demonstrate machine "intelligence" any more than Kasparov's defeat at chess did. It just shows better algorithms and advances in computer processing power.
No sig today...
The only thing surprising about the Go event is that it did not happen like ten, or even twenty, years ago. You may be impressed, but I find this most underwhelming.
That's likely because you don't understand what it involves. Go is unlike chess in the sense that just throwing raw computing power at the problem won't help you at all; for a "small" 13x13 there are over 10^300 valid game trees to compute,
....except that no program ever computes the full game tree. It would be impossible to do in many games, eg. Chess.
The trick is to prune the tree. This requires skill by human programmers.
(What this news is really about is that some humans have managed to produce a workable pruning algorithm for Go, it really has very little to do with AI).
No sig today...
Lee spent a lot less energy than the data center that powered AlphaGo. Even if lee burned 3000 calories in 3.5 hours, that would only be around 3.4 kilo watt hour. AlphaGo's energy usage would be in the tens (or hundreds?) of "mega" watt hour.
I hate you so much right now. I was doing so well, too! With this audience I am sure quite a few people swore out loud (as I did). For those that didn't get the reference... welcome to the big leagues: The Game
"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a targeted advertisement" - Adam Harvey
It requires more than skill. Pruning such a massive game tree is no minor feat - in fact, we don't know how to do it even today. All Go engines are based on some form of adaptive AI.
Again, chess is waaaaay easier in comparison. Pretty much all chess engines work the same way: they start with precomputed moves from an opening book and then move to what's an essentially brute force approach where the engine tries positions, assigns them scores and then picks the highest score available. How these positions are scored / discarded is what separates them, but the base procedure is unchanged. This is also what leads to what chess players call "computer moves" - most chess engines will favor unassuming, conservative moves yielding small positional advantages instead of, well, more "human", intelligent ones. Picking up pivotal moments from classic games (move 17 on Fischer-Byrne, for example) and feeding them to top-rated chess engines is an enlightening exercise.
This is all but impossible to perform in Go with even modest board sizes. The game complexity, given its simple rules, is just staggering.
Go is a far better demonstration of "intelligence" than chess in the sense that you require some form of actual AI to be competitive in it. The opening book+brute force combo used by modern chess engines is useless here.
AlphaGo relies heavily on machine learning neural network to play.
You forgot the 80 attempts at "First Post"
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
5-10 years ago it also would've been more significant.
It wasn't that long ago where chess was able to beat a master.
PS: 5 digit uid.
No argument that chess is simpler but at the end of the day the process is the same. A bunch of humans did trial and error with lots of heuristics and ran machines against each other all day long to find out which ones worked best. When it gets complex you can vary the scores for each heuristic randomly and let the machines fight it out while you sleep. End of story.
The big advantage of machines compared to humans is that they're methodical and don't overlook stuff. They don't get tired, they don't have bad days.
No sig today...
Neural networks are just a fancy form of heuristic.
At the end of the day the underlying main loop in the program will be very similar to chess (or reversi, or tic-tac-toe,,,,).
a) It generates moves
b) It gives the new board position a score
c) It plays the move with the highest score
Part (b) is the tricky bit but at the end of the day it's just a case adding up values output by a set of heuristics applied to the board. The machine isn't showing any "intelligence" at all. All the intelligence comes from the people who decided on what heuristics to use.
No sig today...
Contact bridge is one game where (in spite of some serious efforts like Ginsberg's Intelligent Bridge Player) AIs can still not play near the level of top human players. The game combines imperfect information with being a partnership game. Perhaps an even greater challenge, you are prohibited by the rules from using optimum bidding systems and card signalling methods as these are too difficult for the average player to defend against.
True, but not particularly helpful.
And a necessary prerequisite before pruning the game tree is an efficient algorithm for comparing the likely score for one board position compared to another well before you get to the end of the game. While the AlphaGo team have made progress in this aspect - as well as in other aspects of the game, this remains one of the more difficult aspects of computer Go.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"