https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/03/the-invisible-opponent/475611/towards superiority, and the results are staggering.
How Google's AlphaGo Beat a Go World Champion
Inside a man-versus-machine showdown
By Christopher Moyer
MARCH 28, 2016
[The number of potential legal board positions is greater than the number of atoms in the universe.
...Demis Hassabis, DeepMind’s founder
...Other Korean professionals joke that they’re envious of Lee, that they feel the DeepMind Challenge Match is the easiest million dollars a top-level player could ever make.
... As you are reading this, AlphaGo is improving. It does not take breaks. It does not have days when it just doesn’t feel like practicing, days when it can’t kick its electronic brain into focus. Day in and day out, AlphaGo has been rocketing
...Gu Li, one of Lee’s long-term friends and rivals, comments on Chinese TV that Lee is fighting “a very lonely battle against an invisible opponent.”
...Then comes Lee’s move 78, which will come to be called his “Hand of God” move.
...In the end, finding no moves that improve its chances of winning, it [A.I.] begins playing nonsense moves, moves that actually reduce its own points. Finally, it resigns.
...Go is constantly evolving. What’s considered optimal play changes quickly. Humans have been honing our collective knowledge of the game for more than 2,500 years—the difference is that AlphaGo can do the same thing much, much faster.]
------------------------------------------------
I, Womack, call the A.I. program "TopBot" and the game itself "turff". Lee Sedol himself subsequently retired from playing professional _baduk_.
How much of a handicap would #1 meat need to beat TopBot? When, if ever, will we find out?
the art of teaching go is not that much more difficult than the art of playing go?
sobriquet wrote:
the art of teaching go is not that much more difficult than the art of playing go?Of teaching very basic concepts, maybe. Advanced concepts require sophisticated intelligence, for which AI is not ready.
AI has already demonstrated that it can easily beat people at the
game of go
It's just that humans are rather clueless about the nature of intelligence and >that kind of explains why we don't have AI yet that can communicate at a >conceptual level.
Human intelligence is much more a matter of having huge numbers of people >clowning around and collectively accumulating scraps of knowledge over many >generations rather than single brilliant individual figuring out everything from
scratch (like the current AI approach
sobriquet wrote:
AI has already demonstrated that it can easily beat people at theOf course, but this is not conceptual explanation in
game of go
human-understandable terms.
It's just that humans are rather clueless about the nature of intelligence andNot quite. Proof play, theorem application and expert systems are
that kind of explains why we don't have AI yet that can communicate at a >conceptual level.
examples of ways in which AI and humans can communicate in human-understandable terms.
Human intelligence is much more a matter of having huge numbers of people >clowning around and collectively accumulating scraps of knowledge over many >generations rather than single brilliant individual figuring out everything fromHuman intelligence involves both: accumulating scraps of knowledge and brilliant individuals' thinking. For the latter, read, e.g.,
scratch (like the current AI approach
Combinatorial Game Theory (by Siegel, quite a bit of the contents
applies to Go) and my book Endgame 5 - Mathematics, which contains 149 theorems and their proofs, of which 2/3 are mine.
Books are outdated. I prefer videos.
People's brilliancy can only come to fruition if they
build upon the enormous wealth of accumulated knowledge from their forebears.
You can't expect any individual human to come up with something like quantum field theory
by themselves,
So it would be silly to expect such feats from AI systems gaining knowledge from
experience completely independently.
sobriquet wrote:
Books are outdated. I prefer videos.Both have their purposes but describing books as outdated is improper. Typically, books can have much denser contents than videos. If you
watch all go endgame videos, you can learn only 1% of all endgame
theory.
People's brilliancy can only come to fruition if theyThis is usually so but very much of my discoveries is built from
build upon the enormous wealth of accumulated knowledge from their forebears.
ground up.
You can't expect any individual human to come up with something like quantum field theoryEinstein is an example of building the theory of relativity mostly by
by themselves,
himself seemingly out of nowhere. (It is possible though that his wife contributed and Einstein might have failed to credit this; we cannot
know.)
IIRC, Boltzmann's entropy theory is another such example.
Quantum field theory just happens to be one of the countless common
examples of a theory developed by many.
So it would be silly to expect such feats from AI systems gaining knowledge fromAt least it would be silly to expect that AI would discover a
experience completely independently.
particular theory without prior directional guidance - instead it
might discover some entirely different theory in the future:)
Books are static. Videos are dynamic and can show animations.[...]
interactive educational software can be an even way more powerful
format,
sobriquet wrote:
Books are static. Videos are dynamic and can show animations.[...]
interactive educational software can be an even way more powerfulUsually, videos are also static in the sense that their contents is
format,
defined on creation and does not change dynamically on viewing, quite
like printed books.
Books, videos and software can be used together one's flexible mind or physical / virtual go boards.
The interaction of ebooks or software alone does not provide contents
that is not there. What matters the most is what and how much contents
a medium presents at all.
Dynamic go boards in ebooks or software allow studying variations and
their positions move after move that are not included or shown
explicitly. This may, or may not, be richer than printed books (e.g.,
some of my books show every relevant move or position and study and
explain ALL relevant variations and decisions.
For comparison, the most detailed ebooks I have seen study less, rely
on the reader to study all remaining relevant variations and decisions
on his own. Such ebooks show too few sample decisions so almost all
readers won't know how to find all missing relevant decisions on their
own. They can't be missing any relevant decisions in my related books
because they already contain ALL of them.
Furthermore, replaying moves and positions in ebooks or softwares
encourages lazy thinking instead of training visualisation, tactical
reading and positional judgement.
A technically more powerful because more dynamic format does not
guarantee better, or more complete, teaching.
books have been around much longer, so there is a
wealth of information available in books that has yet to become available
in other formats.
But AI developments go in leaps and bounds and we might not be that
far off from AI software that is able to crunch down a huge bunch of
books (in ebook format) to the essential conceptual structure and
makes this information accessible through a convenient interface that
can generate parts of this structure at an appropriate level of detail
based on the way the user has been interacting with it so far.
I don't think videos are somehow necessarily limited in scope and breadth
of the amount of detail they can cover, since you can make arbitrarily long >videos and split them up in convenient parts,
Ultimately, what matters most is that the person or system explaining the >topic has a very effective way of conveying that content in the most >insightful way, but video can be a more engaging and pleasing format
I'm also interested in learning content in general and topics like math and go are
good subjects that are quite abstract and challenging to master.
In recent years, some go research has exploded in scope. In
the last 5 years, the amount of endgame evaluation theory has been
multiplied by a factor between 2 and 10.
Can you provide any such endgame examples, which would be
misplayed 5 years ago, where the new improved theory analyzes correctly?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 422 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 183:58:53 |
Calls: | 8,947 |
Calls today: | 14 |
Files: | 13,352 |
Messages: | 5,991,295 |