World's top Go player loses second match of five against Google AI

[kurros]

Witness the beginning of the singularity

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21694540-win-or-lose-best-five-battle-contest-another-milestone

If you aren't familiar with Go, it is an ancient Chinese board game played widely across the world, but is mainly big throughout east Asia. It is widely regarded as the most strategically complex and nuanced board game in the world, and relies a lot on intuition and creativity. It has thus far has been one of the only games in which AI has been unable to defeat the top human players.

But all that appears to be changing .

[Nelvan]

The computer has been programmed to learn on its own.  I don't know.  For real AI, I think a computer would have to be able to think outside the box.  In this case, the computer is still thinking inside the box, literally and figuratively.   

[kurros]

The computer has been programmed to learn on its own.  I don't know.  For real AI, I think a computer would have to be able to think outside the box.  In this case, the computer is still thinking inside the box, literally and figuratively.

Literally speaking yes, but from the commentaries I have been reading the AI has not been playing "by the book", and has shocked many with its intensely creative, unorthodox, and aggressive style of play. This coming from the games top players!

[aleph naught]

The computer has been programmed to learn on its own.  I don't know.  For real AI, I think a computer would have to be able to think outside the box.  In this case, the computer is still thinking inside the box, literally and figuratively.

That's too vague to be a real requirement (unless you're happy with intelligence being such a vague and, thus, useless concept). Machines can demonstrate creativity and ingenuity. In this case, the machine is not simply looping through each possible choice and calculating the probability of its leading to a win, but rather is using strategies that it's learned by playing the game over and over. I'd say that's genuine intelligence!

[HIJ]

The computer has been programmed to learn on its own.  I don't know.  For real AI, I think a computer would have to be able to think outside the box.  In this case, the computer is still thinking inside the box, literally and figuratively.

For real AI (as in strong AI), it would have to be conscious--it would have to consciously think. So far as I can see, this little turing test is not relevant at all to the strong AI debate.

[Nelvan]

Kurros and Aleph,

Yes, I agree it is being creative.  Alpeha, you said that my idea of creativity was vague but to me, that is what creativity is, vague.  Otherwise, everyone would be creative using a formula.  And this computer is using formulas.
In game one, the computer started off conservatively probably because it's human competitor started off conservatively.  It is simply mirroring.  At least in the beginning.  That is a sort of formula.  So when you say it is being creative, I think it is using creative formulas. 
Maybe it can switch formulas easily like a boxer who switches from fighting right handed to left handed with ease.  It can be that a computer is more flexible, does not get stuck in a mindset.
But in order to be that free, I feel that it can not be conscious.  Maybe that is what hurts humans:  consciousness.  Concentration is taken away by being conscious of the overall pattern of game.  A computer, on the other hand, move 54 might as well be move one.  Past moves are not distracting it. 

[kurros]

Kurros and Aleph,

Yes, I agree it is being creative.  Alpeha, you said that my idea of creativity was vague but to me, that is what creativity is, vague.  Otherwise, everyone would be creative using a formula.  And this computer is using formulas.
In game one, the computer started off conservatively probably because it's human competitor started off conservatively.  It is simply mirroring.  At least in the beginning.  That is a sort of formula.  So when you say it is being creative, I think it is using creative formulas. 
Maybe it can switch formulas easily like a boxer who switches from fighting right handed to left handed with ease.  It can be that a computer is more flexible, does not get stuck in a mindset.
But in order to be that free, I feel that it can not be conscious.  Maybe that is what hurts humans:  consciousness.  Concentration is taken away by being conscious of the overall pattern of game.  A computer, on the other hand, move 54 might as well be move one.  Past moves are not distracting it.

It's kind of using "formulas", but not like you seem to think. It is a deep-learning neutral network, at least partially. These things are very cool and work in much the same way that the brain is believed to work. The people who programmed it will have only a poor understanding of why it chooses particular moves at any point. All that learned information is quite inscrutable to the programmer.

[Nelvan]

Strong AI would be able to express why move X is better than move Y.  But don't get me wrong, I don't mean to be downplaying this.  I am very impressed and am glad such advancements have been made. 
I am personally hoping AI technology helps the medical profession in diagnosing ailments with greater ease and accuracy.  I hope it lowers medical cost and increases availability to patients as well.

[TheBigOhMan]

¿what does it means to be creative for a human?

[Nelvan]

BigOhMan,

Creating the wheel for transportation purposes is creative.  That creation is simple yet a huge step.  So the question is whether a computer could invent the wheel.  If you placed all information into a computer concerning natural modes of transport such as legs, feet, fins, wings, tentacles, could a computer invent the wheel out of that information?

[TheBigOhMan]

BigOhMan,

Creating the wheel for transportation purposes is creative.  That creation is simple yet a huge step.  So the question is whether a computer could invent the wheel.  If you placed all information into a computer concerning natural modes of transport such as legs, feet, fins, wings, tentacles, could a computer invent the wheel out of that information?

Seems possible. We already know other processes can create things we suspected only human creativity could craft, like gears.

[Nelvan]

But there are already gears.  Where would a computer get an idea of a wheel.  Maybe the idea of the wheel came from seeing a stone rolling down a hill.  Would a computer come up with ideas in such a way?

[TheBigOhMan]

But there are already gears.  Where would a computer get an idea of a wheel.  Maybe the idea of the wheel came from seeing a stone rolling down a hill.  Would a computer come up with ideas in such a way?

Nature came with the invention of gears even before humans where crawling in jungle. I think its posible humans could invent an algorithm that can come up with novel solutions.

[Nelvan]

I'm not sure there can be such an algorithm.   Computers seem to take small steps, maybe a million small steps per second but small steps nevertheless.  Humans take leaps and that seems to make the difference. 

[TheBigOhMan]

I'm not sure there can be such an algorithm.   Computers seem to take small steps, maybe a million small steps per second but small steps nevertheless.  Humans take leaps and that seems to make the difference.

I'm not sure. For example, I've seen programs that emulate evolution come with things humans never thought out before, and animals itself show that non-sentient processes can come up with incredibly interesting things. Maybe it's just about finding the right algorithm.