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

[kurros]

Note also that Deep Blue vs Kasparov was a time competiton as well as the moves.
Obviously the software has more 'time' up its sleeve.

alphaGo vs Se-dol is also timed. Not sure what your point is.

[Lion IRC]

And in a timed game speed is important.

...just like in the 100 metre sprint. (Which Usain Bolt couldn't win vs a Ferrari.)

[Lion IRC]

I would argue than every one of the human-vs-AI contests are comparable to the Ferrari/Usain Bolt analogy.

Sure... in that it is man vs machine. But I would argue that there is a pretty important difference between man-legs vs machine-legs, and man-brain vs machine-brain.

See what you just conceded there?

The human brain isn't as fast as the computer for the EXACT same reason as the humans' legs aren't as fast as a machine. But so what? We already knew that.

No we didn't, and we don't. We know that machine brains are faster than humans at certain tasks, but until now Go has not been one of those tasks. And still isn't until you throw a couple thousand processors at the problem.

Machines are faster than humans doing heaps of tasks.
What so special about Go? It's just another brute force comparison.

[Lion IRC]

Besides, you've still got the potter/clay paradox.

No matter how fantastically, amazingly, astonishingly significant you think it is that computer software/hardware can 'think' faster than some poor guy in Korea, that software was written by a human.

[Lion IRC]

Again, I make the point, in a timed game, where you have a chess clock for example, the human is at a disadvantage. Why?

Not just because they can't match the brute force speed of the machine, but ALSO because, unlike the software, the human has the psychological stress of the time pressure - the clock slowly counting down the remaining time.

Don't you agree that the computer's complete lack of psychological stress, (like the cold-hearted Terminator killing machine played by Arnold Schwarzenegger) actually confirms that it is more artificial?

[wonderer]

Besides, you've still got the potter/clay paradox.

No matter how fantastically, amazingly, astonishingly significant you think it is that computer software/hardware can 'think' faster than some poor guy in Korea, that software was written by a human.

More accurate to say that the machine was programmed to learn to play Go and then watched lots of games of Go in order to learn.  If you think that people knowingly dictated precisely how the machine would behave, then you simply aren't understanding the learning process involved.

[kurros]

I would argue than every one of the human-vs-AI contests are comparable to the Ferrari/Usain Bolt analogy.

Sure... in that it is man vs machine. But I would argue that there is a pretty important difference between man-legs vs machine-legs, and man-brain vs machine-brain.

See what you just conceded there?

The human brain isn't as fast as the computer for the EXACT same reason as the humans' legs aren't as fast as a machine. But so what? We already knew that.

No we didn't, and we don't. We know that machine brains are faster than humans at certain tasks, but until now Go has not been one of those tasks. And still isn't until you throw a couple thousand processors at the problem.

Machines are faster than humans doing heaps of tasks.
What so special about Go? It's just another brute force comparison.

It wasn't brute force. They used a sophisticated learning algorithm.

[kurros]

Again, I make the point, in a timed game, where you have a chess clock for example, the human is at a disadvantage. Why?

The clock is there to make it fair for the *human*, not the other way around. It is much easier for the machine if it has longer to compute what to do next. Even with thousands of cpus at its disposal alphaGo was taking 10+ seconds,  up to a minute or so, to decide moves.

Not just because they can't match the brute force speed of the machine, but ALSO because, unlike the software, the human has the psychological stress of the time pressure - the clock slowly counting down the remaining time.

Don't you agree that the computer's complete lack of psychological stress, (like the cold-hearted Terminator killing machine played by Arnold Schwarzenegger) actually confirms that it is more artificial?

The machine is obviously artificial. That's what "A" in "AI" stands for. Not sure what your point is.

[Lion IRC]

The point is you haven't made something like human intelligence.
You've made something obviously and conspicuously unlike human intelligence.

And I really don't know how it is you can't see that processor speed is sheer brute force - no different than password nut crackers. How is it fair for the human that a computer can process millions of possible move combinations per minute?

[kurros]

The point is you haven't made something like human intelligence.
You've made something obviously and conspicuously unlike human intelligence.

And I really don't know how it is you can't see that processor speed is sheer brute force - no different than password nut crackers. How is it fair for the human that a computer can process millions of possible move combinations per minute?

It is fair because that isn't the kind of strategy the bot uses. If it used that strategy it would lose. Go cannot be won like that against good players because the number of possible moves explodes into unmanageable numbers too rapidly, far too large for the AI to search.

The bot learned the same way humans do, by watching games. It categorises various aspects of the game into higher order concepts, as humans do, and evaluates its moves based mostly on "intuition", that is, the network evaluation of the global game state, again in a similar way to humans.

You should really read more about how it works, you seem to be really failing to appreciate what has been achieved here.

[aleph naught]

Meanwhile, in other news;

A Ferrari beats Usain Bolt in the 100 metre sprint.

If you don't think this is a significant milestone in AI then you should go read about it more, because you are wrong.

I don't like being told I'm wrong. *sniff*


In my opinion a Ferrari actually CAN go faster than Usain Bolt. But you seem to disagree.

I'd be impressed if the Go software was written by a non-human.
Self-sufficient, autonomous AI writing its own AI software script. THAT would send shivers up my spine.

But for the time being, all we have is the same old boring "if/then" method merely sped up faster and faster so it does more 'stuff' in the same time - thereby achieving exactly what we would expect.

Fast doesn't equal 'intelligent'.

No, this is a neural network not just some brute force algorithm going through all the options and checking different conditions. It wasn't programmed to play the game, it learned how to play by simply playing over and over again (trying out different things and seeing how they work).

Machines are faster than humans doing heaps of tasks.
What so special about Go? It's just another brute force comparison.

That's what's special about it: it's not just another brute force algorithm.

[TheBigOhMan]

The point is you haven't made something like human intelligence.
You've made something obviously and conspicuously unlike human intelligence.

And I really don't know how it is you can't see that processor speed is sheer brute force - no different than password nut crackers. How is it fair for the human that a computer can process millions of possible move combinations per minute?

It is fair because that isn't the kind of strategy the bot uses. If it used that strategy it would lose. Go cannot be won like that against good players because the number of possible moves explodes into unmanageable numbers too rapidly, far too large for the AI to search.

The bot learned the same way humans do, by watching games. It categorises various aspects of the game into higher order concepts, as humans do, and evaluates its moves based mostly on "intuition", that is, the network evaluation of the global game state, again in a similar way to humans.

You should really read more about how it works, you seem to be really failing to appreciate what has been achieved here.

The robot may be capable of doing that, but a robot will never actually understand how to play Go.

[kurros]

The point is you haven't made something like human intelligence.
You've made something obviously and conspicuously unlike human intelligence.

And I really don't know how it is you can't see that processor speed is sheer brute force - no different than password nut crackers. How is it fair for the human that a computer can process millions of possible move combinations per minute?

It is fair because that isn't the kind of strategy the bot uses. If it used that strategy it would lose. Go cannot be won like that against good players because the number of possible moves explodes into unmanageable numbers too rapidly, far too large for the AI to search.

The bot learned the same way humans do, by watching games. It categorises various aspects of the game into higher order concepts, as humans do, and evaluates its moves based mostly on "intuition", that is, the network evaluation of the global game state, again in a similar way to humans.

You should really read more about how it works, you seem to be really failing to appreciate what has been achieved here.

The robot may be capable of doing that, but a robot will never actually understand how to play Go.

Define "actually understand". Strikes me as a distinction without a (observable) difference. BTW game 3 has just gone to alphaGo, so that's it, it has won the series. Go has been mastered by AI.

[Philip Rand]

Go has been mastered by AI.

Just another piece of evidence that Anselm's Ontological Argument is valid...

[aleph naught]

Go has been mastered by AI.

Just another piece of evidence that Anselm's Ontological Argument is valid...

How is that?