Go Champion Lee Se-dol Beats Google's DeepMind AI For First Time (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Korean Go grandmaster Lee Se-dol on Sunday registered his first win over Google's AlphaGo. The win comes after AlphaGo won first three games in the DeepMind challenge earlier this week. The win should serve as a reminder that Google's artificial intelligence computer is not perfect after all, at least for now. Se-dol said earlier this week that he was not able to defeat AlphaGo because he could not find any weakness in its strategy. Commenting after his win, Se-dol said, "I've never been congratulated so much just because I won one game!"

Comments

This is interesting

[javilon]

So AlphaGo is not so far away from a Dan 9 human player.

My guess is that the mistake AlphaGo made on move 79 will be analyzed and a new version will be created, stronger than the current one. Maybe this analysis will point to a whole class of mistakes that will be fixed.

It is a bit like when Google's self driving cars make a mistake. This mistake is used as input for the next release of the software so it doesn't act the same way next time. With this process, one car making a mistake results in a change in behavior of all of the cars, because with AI it is possible to communicate new knowledge to the rest of the cars. All of them improve, unlike humans for whom transmitting the new knowledge involves a lot of work or may not even be possible.

Re:This is interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that it's an self-learning AI, this match will of course be added to the training set, and the neural network will adapt to it. I'd be surprised if there would be a new _version_ of AlphaGo to fix this. There'll rather be an improved neural network - but that's a continuous process as AlphaGo keeps playing against itself and learning from it.

Re:This is interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Mikhail Botvinnik worked for years with a team on one of the first non-brute-force programs, PIONEER. While the program itself was not ultimately at the forefront of chess programs, spinoffs of the developed algorithms were employed for energy network planning in the USSR at increasingly larger scale and successfully so.

Re:This is interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's that easy.

The game changed when Lee joined together two large fronts, creating an inside outside problem with territory far far bigger than in any of the previous 3 games.

Alpha go seemed in capable of doing the calculations for that area, as time ran down it first resorted to playing off the smaller fronts, then it eventually resorted to last ditch moves which were rubbish moves that would only pay off if Lee made a mistake, then it resigned. It seems it was never even able to compute the middle of the board.

Alpha go looked indecisive and risk averse. Lee was the opposite.

Go Turing Test

[PolygamousRanchKid]

It would be interesting to set up a Go Turing Test. Either have another top Go player or AlphaGo behind a wall calling the moves.

Can the human champ Lee Se-dol determine if he is playing against a computer or a human . . . ?

Also, the more he plays against AlphaGo, will he develop different strategies for playing against computers, as opposed to humans . . . ?

Re:Go Turing Test

[slashping]

I think that a rematch in a few years would be quite interresting.

If the development of the software continues, the human will be massacred, even with the new knowledge.

Re:Go Turing Test

[Kjella]

It would be interesting to set up a Go Turing Test. Either have another top Go player or AlphaGo behind a wall calling the moves.

Can the human champ Lee Se-dol determine if he is playing against a computer or a human... ?

Well at least in the end game the pros were pretty clear that this was not the kind of plays you'd make to try to confuse a 9 dan pro into losing a slightly favorable position. It was forcing Lee Se-dol to counter but all it really did was give him more time to consider the remaining contested areas while playing moves he could blitz if he'd wanted to. Also previously they felt AlphaGo took some really convoluted ways to win where a human would just simplify to claim the win. So when you step out of the game and into the meta-game it seems obvious - to them at least - that you're playing a computer.

Re:What would happen

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Actually I believe that this was part of AlphaGo's training . . . playing against itself.

Re:Spoiler ALERT!!!

[stealth_finger]

There's a new one. Slashdot posting something timely enough it could be a spoiler.

Re:This is nevertheless a great achievement

[slashping]

Maybe, at some time, they can even do the job of commenting on Slashdot, and you'll get to enjoy a bunch more free time.

Re:So when was it claimed to be perfect?

[urdak]

What on earth is it supposed to mean? Has this guy won every game against every other person? Therefore they're not perfect. But those winners, does that mean THEY were perfect? No, can't be because they didn't win all their games.

"Perfect" is an exaggeration, but the human's one win does demonstrates the computer is not vastly superior to the human. If *I* was to play against this computer, I would loose in each and every game. 100% of the games. I didn't even write "99.999%" because I couldn't win a single game against a vastly superior software. Go is not a game of chance, so my "luck" would not have let me win even once. But the Go champion did win some games against the software, so apparently they still are at a comparable playing level (even if one is slightly better than the other). So the software isn't "perfect" at beating humans. Yet.

Match reviews

[belthize]

I'm looking forward to the eventual move by move analysis of these games. For now there's some interesting commentary here: https://gogameguru.com/alphago...

It's been 20+ years since I played Go semi-seriously. I used to have a collection of Ishi Press books which I've long since misplaced. I suddenly find myself very interested in the game again.

After the loss ...

[PPH]

... DeepMind just sank into a depressed state, refusing to display anything other than the Windows Metro interface.