Slashdot Mirror
Human Go Champion 'Speechless' After 2nd Loss To Machine (phys.org)
Reader chasm22 points to a Phys.org report about the second straight loss of Lee Sedol to AlphaGo, the program developed by Google's DeepMind unit. The human Go champion, Sedol found himself "speechless" after the showdown on Thursday. The human versus machine face-off lasted more than four hours, which to Sedol's credit is a slight improvement over his previous match, which had ended with him resigning nearly half an hour remaining on the clock.
"It was a clear loss on my part," Sedol said at a press conference on Thursday. "From the beginning there was no moment I thought I was leading." Demis Hassabis, who heads Google's DeepMind, said, "Because the number of possible Go board positions exceeds the number of atoms in the universe, top players rely heavily on their intuition."
Sedol will battle Google's AlphaGo again on Saturday, Sunday, and Tuesday.
Having a competitive Go engine capable of beating a 9-dan player is huge. Huge.
something something.... overlords... something something....
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
This is why games like Go and Chess pale in comparison to more modern games that rely upon language and some amount of randomness. Both Chess and Go are incredibly boring (to me, of course) and more recent games, especially euro-style board games offer much more in types of complexity and more importantly, fun.
I'd love to see a computer regularly beat a human being in a game of Magic the Gathering, block-constructed. Won't happen.
How long would a game last with AlphaGo playing against itself?
Because, like, beating a human at Go is important stuff, man
Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, March 10th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.
The merit function, which is an object evaluation of the current position, and its gradient are all that matter. If Google has a good merit function, they can't lose.
Robots will be having debates on whether or not those pesky bald monkeys actually created them. They will be digging up old electronic waste and claiming that they evolved from the iPad and iPhone and the assembly line robots.
There will be debates about what to download to their children.
There will be the "Save the Humans" organizations to keep robots from indiscriminately killing the bald monkeys that inhabit their attics and basements. Human traps will be available at Robo*Mart.
And I have been watching waaaay too many Futurama episodes on Netflix. They took Doctor Who off! Bastards!
Sedol will battle Google's AlphaGo again on Saturday, Sunday, and Tuesday.
Note that for many people in the western hemisphere, the days are actually Friday, Saturday, and Monday.
Live streams are here.
While the loser of the match was struck silent by the defeat the computer just... will... not.. stop... talking. GAWD! How annoying.
Does the computer not know either pity or remorse for its opponent?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Would be interesting to see how this new approach fairs against the best chess algorithms.
AlphaGo vs DeepBlue.
Can we get more details about DeepMind's proof that the number of atoms in the universe is finite (and not just the observable universe)?
Is it really that amazing that a computer could be better at a game that has so many possible moves that it defies the human mind, but one that can be calculated entirely? Really it was all a matter of having enough capacity for the calculations. More impressive would be a computer consistently winning a game where a high degree of human psychology factors into the success of it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
No, Mr. Lee, it is the computer that is speechless.
I hear anything Go-es there when it comes to a dan number 9.
Anyway, as a professional player, he is a Go-ner !
Bazinga !
This is just the Alpha version. The beta will be better we promise.
he's playing against it like it's a human opponent, he's playing against it like he's a go champion, he needs to play against it like he's a programmer. I would be curious as to how it deals with mirror play, or wildly suboptimal plays. I would wonder if it's overfit to go played well.
This is the standings of Go pros by Elo score. Lee is currently the 4th highest.
And this will be what the FINAL Go standing will look like, before it is taken over by AI this year.
Basically from now on it will never be possible for any human to beat an AI any more.
when you read the summary
What about if you gave him time to get use to his opponent over six months? A human can learn and adapt. Will this "AI" adapt at least equally? Indeed what would happen after six months? I predict the man would definitely win.
Humans make mistakes, so can computers. He should have played the full games instead of resigning. Maybe the computer AI really sucks at making those last winning moves and he could have exploited that.
AlphaGo 'Speechless' after 2nd Win vs Human Go Champion
Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
"Because the number of possible Go board positions exceeds the number of atoms in the universe, top players rely heavily on their intuition." An algorithm, be it in silicone or a human brain can easily work on infinitely sized data sets. I'm not sure why they are implying that intuition has to be used instead of algorithms in such a scenario.
Another human devalued by a machine, get used to it.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Yes this is a big thing. But it is only showing that computer programs are better at pattern recognition and searching then humans in a constrained environment. Go is more complicated than chess, but the computer in both cases is playing the best optimized move that it can and it can definitely search much deeper in the game tree than a human can and in a faster way. The program has no intuition because it is only simulating a certain part of the reasoning process that we use. Humans have the ability to bring in much more external experience and apply it to the problem. Even a 2 year old child could play GO to some level. He can always try a different tactic that the program has not be trained on, think outside the box. Demis Hassabis is a smart guy so I'm sure there will be more to come from this GO program.
My chess computer beat me every &^#@! time, but it was no match for me at kickboxing.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Well it might be good at Go, but I wonder if it can play this game. Or a good game of chess?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
My understanding from 20 years ago was that the geometric progression of possible game permutations was so large that you couldn't possibly brute force search very many moves ahead, so AI players used book openings and brute force lookahead for end game, but were pretty useless for the middle part of the game. How did they conquer the law of large numbers and solve this? Human players see patterns composed of large numbers of pieces rather than individual pieces, I think that's how they handle the complexity. Did they figure out a way to have the AI "see" patterns larger than individual pieces? I'd actually like to know what strategy they used to make this beat human champions in a problem set that was the epitome of "can't be solved by brute force".
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
There is as much genetic diversity on the African continent as there is across the rest of humanity. The population of just Asia is about 4.5 times larger than that of all of Africa. Think about those two facts for a while. They may help you to make more sophisticated and relevant observations in the future.
Time to teach this AIphaGo that the only winning move is to not play at all. You know, before it causes global thermonuclear war.
DATA
Working under the assumption that
Kolrami is attempting to win, it
is reasonable to assume that he
expects me to play for the same
goal.
WESLEY
You weren't?
DATA
No. I was playing only for a
standoff -- a "draw." While
Kolrami was dedicated to winning,
I was able to pass up obvious
avenues of advancement and settle
for a balance.
Theoretically, I should be able
to challenge him indefinitely.
PULASKI
Then you have beaten him.
DATA
A matter of perspective. In the
strictest sense I did not win.
TROI/PULASKI
Data!
DATA
I busted him up.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/...
A big one would be medical diagnosis. The kind of analysis it does would be well suited to that. You feed it a patient profile, symptoms and so on. It then searches all the medical literature out there, every last bit, and returns what it believes are the most probably diagnoses, along with percentages (as it would do for Jeopardy answers on its visual output). It could also probably suggests tests to rule out things. If a doctor then subsequently ruled out a given condition, it can refactor the likely results.
That could really, really help medical diagnosis get more accurate, particularly for rare issues. As my doctor once told me "We can usually help you if it is common, or if it is serious, otherwise it can be difficult." There is just only so much one person can know. With an expert system like Watson, it can literally access all medical information ever. It is still going to need a doctor using it, it isn't the kind of thing that could be followed blindly, but it could really bring diagnosis to the next level and make it so that every primary care provider basically has access to the best, most comprehensive diagnosis information available.
Now that may not happen, because IBM seems to be a completely fucking stupid company that sells off or shuts down every useful project in favour of marketing overpriced services, but someone will do it at some point if not them.
If you take a chessboard and randomize the pieces, like a truly statistically random placement, it levels the playing field of humans a ton. Masters perform much closer to inexperienced players because one of the things humans rely on is seeing patterns they recognize and working from that, which doesn't happen. However chess programs do just fine. They can still simulate out all the moves to a good number of turns ahead and statistically decide the more optimal ones.
Why do people who claim to be "speechless" then proceed to blabber on for another ten or fifteen minutes?
In order to make it more human, perhaps it is time to arrange to have the AI lose.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
It seems like it's best of five...are draws common in Go? It seems like winning three games is not enough given the variety of opening strategies.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What I found interesting about Watson is that it answered a question with exactly the same wrong response as a human who had just answered. In other words, it lacked a sense of hearing, and was completely ignorant about the surrounding game.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Was AlphaGo writing Go?
The third, most critical, is that the % population that have leisure time to spend learning and mastering board game instead of worrying about how to survive (actual survival - food /water /shelter) or about stability of life (political coups, local wars, terrorists).
Now you are down to a very small number in global terms.
If world's leading mathematicians and Go players come together and are paid salaries for couple of years specifically to defeat the computer and Alpha Go receives no further human help, who will win most games on a rematch?
It could be that AlphaGo team has discovered some really great new strategies for playing go thanks to their expertise, cooperation and very powerful machine learning tools. But once these strategies are explained to human players, the game could again become a major challenge for unassisted AI to beat.
The next AI shock would be in games that the players do not have full knowledge of the game board.
Once that happens, realistic machine intelligence will be one step away. All that would be needed is to hook up a computer with external sensors and give it a target that it must survive.
Reality is like a board game where the whole state of it is unknown and the computer, just like humans, will have to speculate, love and fear.
"Because the number of possible Go board positions exceeds the number of atoms in the universe,
That seems like quite a bold claim. Atoms in the whole universe? Google tells me the known universe holds an estimated 10^78 to 10^82 atoms whereas a 19x19 go board has 10^170 legal moves.......that doesn't seem right, it can't be. I mean, the teeny tiny things that basically build everything that exists vs spots on a shitty grid...really? Does anyone else taste copper?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
For those interested into watching the famous 37th move (19th move of AlphaGo) every news out there is talking about, it's at 1:17:50 in the youtube video:
https://youtu.be/l-GsfyVCBu0?t=1h17m50s
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Africans have plenty of leisure time. It's just spent on sex rather than on board games.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Far more interesting would be to have a program for Codex.
Quick comparison
1. Each person starts with a very small deck (10 cards; there is no death from deck-out, you just shuffle and continue), and a very large sideboard (2 copies of each of 36 cards in three groups.)
2. Each turn until you have 10 "workers" (think mana sources), you must add two cards from your sideboard, and probably want to convert your worst hand card into a worker
3. Almost everything you do is a tradeoff of present resources vs future resources. For example, you draw 2 cards more than you discard; discard 3, draw 5 is normal. Bring out a lot of units and spells, and you might discard 1, draw 3 instead.
4. The starting bonus for player 2 is large enough that you would actually choose it fairly often. (+1 worker -- that's +1 gold per turn for the whole game, and 2 less forced adds to your deck).
Note that item 1 means that "building your deck" isn't the pre-game game with a meta-game of "what does the internet say are the best decks"; you have to choose how to react to your opponent's choices and openings.
Actually, since the deck here is built as you go, there is no "single key strategy". There are some things that your opponent's cards won't be able to do, so there will be some things in your cards that will just never get used in this battle -- but of the remaining choices, there's a lot of choices to make.
Equally, since your whole "active play deck" is generally two turns or less of draws (typically in the 9 to 14 card range, with total draws in the 4-7 cards per turn range), luck is reduced -- you can add two of a wanted card before you shuffle, so you have a very good chance of getting one of them each time. Some colors can eliminate that luck -- purple can recover cards from their discard, green can get some specific animals directly, etc.
Interestingly, of the 6 colors, 3 are very similar to their magic colors (green, red, black); one is similar (blue; control/denial/illusion); one is not very similar (white), and one is ... well, purple is past, present, and future -- and future is protoss from star craft. Unlike M:tG, mono-color is very playable -- each color has a complete set of options and potential actions.
(It's also not collectable -- https://www.kickstarter.com/pr... Kickstarter has ended, but you can order on backerkit).
It'll be interesting to pit this AI vs itself for some millions of rounds as training. Maybe it'll come up with different openings ("Huh, turns out it's actually better to go for the center at first" kind of thing, for example). Fun times :)
"Because the number of possible Go board positions exceeds the number of atoms in the universe, top players rely heavily on their intuition."
Why are people so stupid?
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!