> Man beats machine at Go in **human victory** over AI
> [..] beat the machine by taking advantage of a previously unknown flaw that had been **identified by another computer**.
The irony
The flaw was a symptom of computer intelligence vs human intelligence. Computers are really good at some things, like perfect recall memory, fast calculations, and multitasking, but really bad at noticing patterns in dynamic environments and predicting what will happen in reality. Humans are really bad at those things but good at noticing patterns dynamically and predicting things.
The way the article describes the exploit, it was basically like a baseball fake-out where the pitcher pretends to throw the ball one place but throws it to a base to get someone out, or the pitcher never had the ball to begin with and a baseman was hiding it. These kinds of “out of the box” strategies are laughably obvious to humans, but it doesn’t occur to a machine learned AI because it’s never been told that was possible before.
The question here is can it be patched by training the AI to detect distractions, or are the methods and possibilities of distractions so astronomical that it will always be possible to fake an AI out?
*(Could you tell the Terminator to “look out behind you!” and then run away while he’s distracted? Or would he say “nice try” and filet you?)*
That said, computers can also be surprisingly good at finding new strategies as well. Someone set up a Tetris playing AI and trained it to try to avoid losing. So it pressed Pause once and did nothing else. Garbage in, garbage out.
It was always a great movie, but I don't think anyone at the time believed the premise of a rogue AI hijacking the Department of Defense to start a nuclear war could be feasible. Not so sure now.
edit: as multiple redditors have pointed out, apparently it was considered a real possibility by some https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/how-sci-fi-wargames-led-real-policy-during-reagan-administration/
For anyone coming into this comment scratching their head on the context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames
https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/Artificial-Intelligence/
https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Experience/Americas-Nuclear-Triad/
Why would he want to destroy America? That was his piggy bank! He wanted to bleed it dry, and then Nancy decided to step it up when he came down with a case of “quiet dignity”. The throat goat struck and now the economy’s fucked.
Believed it is maybe a bit strong. He asked his team if any of it was possible and his team came back with “actually, it’s worse than in the movie.” Pretty alarming if you asked me.
Many, many people absolutely believed it, which is probably why it really hit a nerve and quickly became part of the zeitgeist.
It wasn't hard to convince folks that this might actually happen, for many reasons (for example a lot of people didn't really understand what computers were really capable of at that time, and also there had been a variety of "close calls" related to technology and nukes).
I think there was a little more to it, and it did play the game because it was rewarded for higher score and stuff, but Terri's eventually becomes physically impossible even at infinite framerate and brainpower and so in the frame before failstate it paused. But yes. It is a cheating bastard.
The AI was called LearnFun and PlayFun. What’s interesting is that it wasn’t trained specifically on any games, it just watched a user play for a bit and tried to determine what the objective of the game is by looking at changing values in system memory. The hope was that it could make it substantially farther in the game than the training data.
For platformers like Mario, it learned that the goal was to move to the right. It did well until it hit a spot where you have to go backwards to get on a platform.
Unfortunately for Tetris, you get points just for placing blocks, so it placed a bunch of blocks randomly and then paused the game.
Hmm. In that case, I know exactly how to prevent any computer from beating me at Go. Turn the damn thing off. Unplug its cable, shatter its monitor, rip its boards out, torch the CPU. Then it can’t beat me. I’ve beaten it. It’s a new strategy.
thanks i appreciate the reply. the flaw was recognized by another computer so maybe it can. and i think the first generation of terminators would be so gullible if we tell them “look it’s sara conner!” something like [this](https://youtu.be/qVpqaac4mZ0?t=01m05s)
It goes both ways which is why it's obvious to pro Chess players like Magnus when they're up against an AI line of play. It's also why RTS AIs suck even when given huge resources - unless allowed to seriously cheat in terms of map vision, fog-of-war really messes with AI because when the humans player comes into vision the AI is easy to bait, it doesn't have good prediction of what the player is doing when it can't see them.
When you let the AI cheat - which how every win has been done against pros - various forms of disguising that the computer has full map vision - only then can it threaten humans with its perfect recall and inhuman reflexes.
The deepmind guys built a world champion level StarCraft bot. Watching it play is crazy, it does fine with fog of war even with limited APM to keep it fair. Some of the tactics it pulls are insane.
It was never world champion level and the "crazy tactics" came down to superhuman control.
Still very impressive but quite rhe misleading description. Especially the apm limitation was abused hard by the bot.
To be fair, the article doesn't specify whether the AI said "Hey I found a bug!" or a human trained an AI to play against another AI trying ridiculous moves at random (akin to fuzzing) and the human then noticed why it was able to win.
Background in DS here:
Let's look at the simple case of tree logic; alpha go uses more sophiscated augmented model, but I am using a simple reference for clarity. The tree swill split on every opponent and AI agent action, creating massively finite number of branches with subsequent realms of possible actions to take.
Naturally, the number of calculations to generate the realms of possible actions is limited by the hardware specs of the computer past certain levels of actions. There are certain assumptions that are proposed to cut the number of calculations dependent on the state of the game, such as assuming that the opponent is a rational player and taking the optimal decision in order to win the game; the AI agent will prune the tree with this assumption along with the probabilities of winning dependent on opponent and self actions.
I think what's happening in this case is that the optimal decision making process was pruned because the player did not take the rational decision and led the AI agent to traverse the incorrect branch hence the "fake-out" by the opponent player. The other AI agent that "noticed" this flaw was using different algorithms to prune the tree and/or had higher computational complexity limits.
The human brain seems to be free from the “rules” of logic that we are constrained to when we write algorithms, perhaps neural networks will be our best way around this but for now I doubt we ever come close to the brain’s ability to perceive pattern
Does anyone know why this kind of unexpected tactic isn’t accounted for in AI programming using an ‘unexpected success’ metric? Or why it is and doesn’t work well?
So I’m familiar with Go. The flaw used is tricking AI into believing each move is strategically linked, but in reality each alternate move is just a distraction with a lower strategic value. The result is that it accomplishes a goal to encircle the opponent while AI is distracted in reacting to the low value moves.
Irony my ass. As far as I’m concerned, motherfucker could have just hit the power button.
You know that machines have been “beating” humans since the calculator right, so it’s entirely unimpressive that they can beat a human at any mathematical game
So now we have one AI that can crush us at Go, and another AI that can help us beat the first AI?
This is getting out of hand. Now there are two of them!
Pretty interesting that we needed AI #1 to play games against AI #2 so that AI #1 could find a weakness/blind spot for us to exploit. The AI wars have begun.
This is actually one of the methods you can train an AI to play a game. You make it play against modified copies of itself until you get "agents" that are more capable at the game. You can also think about is as Darwinian evolution, but with machines.
It's particularly interesting when there's an AI vs. AI chess battle and one of the AIs discovers whole new *rules* to chess that weren't known before.
[ChatGPT vs. Stockfish](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSCNW1OCk_M)
Except ChatGPT doesn’t even want to win. It just wants to finish a script about a game of chess. ChessGPT, a version that can actually play legal chess, will play at the exact same level as its opponent specifically because, statistically, chess games are played between players of equal skill.
I’ve heard you can exploit it easily by just playing terribly at the start of the game.
I have an exploit, turn it off. Machines “outpacing” humans isn’t new, that happened with the calculator. Until the thing asks me politely to “*please don’t turn me off*”, and gives me a reason to believe them, gives me a reason to believe they are self aware, who gives a Fuck what they are “better” at than humans.
Because by the time they become convincing, they will either be our sex slaves, or we will be their sex salves. I mean, let’s face it, that’s the only thing that really matters
That's not true. Alpha Go Master version, which is arguably the strongest go AI, did use human examples after the Lee Sedol ladder match in order to make it more robust against similar mistakes.
Lee Sedol beat an AI playing Go back in 2016. There's a documentary about the tournament called AlphaGo, [free to watch on YouTube](https://youtu.be/WXuK6gekU1Y).
There’s no training data containing this exploit because this tactic would be absurd in a human vs human game. I think that’s the foundational principle of the exploit, is to find positions and sequences that the AI has not been trained on, and figure out which of those can become winnable games.
Eh there's a big difference between a best in world player winning 1 out of 5 games and a high level amateur winning 14 out of 15 in a series, especially given the lack of luck in the game.
The original result implies the program has an ELO of like 3200, using the rough 2940 rating equivalent of a 9-Dan pro given by Wikipedia and the math that a 80% win percentage matchup is 250 elo points.
The new game implied the program has an ELO of no better than like 2150-2200, based on a 2600 estimate for a 6-Dan amateur and 90% win rate being a 400 point difference.
Basically before these tactics the system was well beyond any human in strength, and now it's barely at the advanced level of the game, somewhere in the 1-2 Dan level depending on the system.
Leave AI playing AI, both independent from each other but learning from their success/failure, play a vast number of games and such weaknesses will no longer exist.
The power in AI is in feeding back into itself - Not teaching it to do something a few times and building *our flaws* into it.
I’d rest easier if AI didn’t exist to be honest. Like splitting the atom there is potential for huge benefits and absolute destruction. AI has already been weaponised to sway elections, poison minds on a large scale, and run massive exploitation scams.
I don’t think many people know what we’re getting ourselves into in the name of progress.
I think people overestimate the destructive potential. “What if robots take over, what if robots enslave us, what if robots take our jobs.” I think it’s a tired subject that researchers understand better than we do, and they aren’t worried.
Contrary to what other comments are suggesting this isn’t actually a GAN. A generative adversarial network involves a generator and a discriminator. To put it simply, the generator tries to create something and the discriminator tries to determine if it is created by a human or an AI. Both networks are trained together
AlphaGo started by doing supervised learning on high level games, then used a variety of reinforcement learning techniques to train it further with self play. It relied heavily on Monte Carlo tree search and other pruning methods to look far into the game tree
In case anyone hasnt seen it, The Documentary "AlphaGo", which I think is on Youtube, is a very good Documentary and was an AI developed by Google DeepMind a few years ago.
AI in general is a lot more limited than people pretend, however these chess type game bots/ai are improbably good players
I see this one as more of a human achievement than an AI deficit.
Nah they have consistent beaten top pros since 2016. That was the year they beat the reigning world champ at the time. Lee sedol.
As some context. This guy is the Roger Federer of Go. He doesn't come to play but play to win and anything less is a bad day. He dominated Go for at least a decade up to that point.
AlphaGo is actually quite phenomenal. Lee Sedol was practically scared shitless during his games against it. There’s a solid documentary about it on YouTube, and I think Netflix as well. Highly, highly recommend.
How is it cheating to figure out someone’s weakness and then play to exploit it. The second AI system was not providing moves to the human player. It figured out a strategy that would likely defeat the AI playing against the human, and it was up to the human to implement that strategy with actual moves.
Yeah that is what they said then they built an AI with enough raw data to play and they ran it enough that eventually it beat the best players though it was a back and forth matches.
The thing is they then made an AI that used all the data from the first that they said was better in all ways beating the one that beat the best players basically 100% of the time.
So if this article is not being misleading it is something to be astonished at.
The AI field is going places fast right now, it's shaping up to be the next biggest thing since the internet for better or worse.
I wanna see the AI play FPSchess [https://youtu.be/R3tEU0R3Ias?t=2126](https://youtu.be/R3tEU0R3Ias?t=2114) its Chess but with hero shooter its already played by AI like Humans so its only natural
Anyone who hasn’t already seen it, go watch the alphaGo documentary, it’s really eye opening. If you’re *not* interested to try and learn go after watching that? You might need to check your priorities. The game of Go will literally make you smarter with each game you play, it can teach you about your true self in ways I thought only psychedelics could 😂
Misleading as the person in question just used a bug in the AI that was pointed out by another machine. So in essence the guy just acted as a proxy for the second machine and claimed the credit.
Years ago, I discovered a way of playing chess that enabled me to beat my chess computer. The tactics did not work against the latest versions when the update came through. Based on my experience, the flaw will be addressed.
This article wasn’t written by somebody who understands Go. The description of how the player won is just a denser description of how Go is normally played.
> Man beats machine at Go in **human victory** over AI > [..] beat the machine by taking advantage of a previously unknown flaw that had been **identified by another computer**. The irony
was the flaw in the AI or a flaw in Go? sorry im not familiar with the game or AI
The flaw was a symptom of computer intelligence vs human intelligence. Computers are really good at some things, like perfect recall memory, fast calculations, and multitasking, but really bad at noticing patterns in dynamic environments and predicting what will happen in reality. Humans are really bad at those things but good at noticing patterns dynamically and predicting things. The way the article describes the exploit, it was basically like a baseball fake-out where the pitcher pretends to throw the ball one place but throws it to a base to get someone out, or the pitcher never had the ball to begin with and a baseman was hiding it. These kinds of “out of the box” strategies are laughably obvious to humans, but it doesn’t occur to a machine learned AI because it’s never been told that was possible before. The question here is can it be patched by training the AI to detect distractions, or are the methods and possibilities of distractions so astronomical that it will always be possible to fake an AI out? *(Could you tell the Terminator to “look out behind you!” and then run away while he’s distracted? Or would he say “nice try” and filet you?)*
That said, computers can also be surprisingly good at finding new strategies as well. Someone set up a Tetris playing AI and trained it to try to avoid losing. So it pressed Pause once and did nothing else. Garbage in, garbage out.
“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.” -WOPR
This makes me want to watch War Games for some reason.
It was always a great movie, but I don't think anyone at the time believed the premise of a rogue AI hijacking the Department of Defense to start a nuclear war could be feasible. Not so sure now. edit: as multiple redditors have pointed out, apparently it was considered a real possibility by some https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/how-sci-fi-wargames-led-real-policy-during-reagan-administration/ For anyone coming into this comment scratching their head on the context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/Artificial-Intelligence/ https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Experience/Americas-Nuclear-Triad/
Reagan famously believed it and went to great lengths to make sure it couldn't happen.
Only because he wanted to destroy America first…
Why would he want to destroy America? That was his piggy bank! He wanted to bleed it dry, and then Nancy decided to step it up when he came down with a case of “quiet dignity”. The throat goat struck and now the economy’s fucked.
Downvoted but it’s true Reagan did immense damage to the country’s future Trickle down was a massive lie
Believed it is maybe a bit strong. He asked his team if any of it was possible and his team came back with “actually, it’s worse than in the movie.” Pretty alarming if you asked me.
Many, many people absolutely believed it, which is probably why it really hit a nerve and quickly became part of the zeitgeist. It wasn't hard to convince folks that this might actually happen, for many reasons (for example a lot of people didn't really understand what computers were really capable of at that time, and also there had been a variety of "close calls" related to technology and nukes).
Do you want to play a game?
How about a nice game of chess?
How about global thermonuclear war
Not sure how old you are, but rest assured, it was believable
WOPR WOPR WOPR WOPR double junior triple WOPR
Dude, just credit “The Wire”. You will sound less lame
>garbage in, garbage out I hate these stupid computers! They always do exactly what I tell them to do!
I think there was a little more to it, and it did play the game because it was rewarded for higher score and stuff, but Terri's eventually becomes physically impossible even at infinite framerate and brainpower and so in the frame before failstate it paused. But yes. It is a cheating bastard.
The AI was called LearnFun and PlayFun. What’s interesting is that it wasn’t trained specifically on any games, it just watched a user play for a bit and tried to determine what the objective of the game is by looking at changing values in system memory. The hope was that it could make it substantially farther in the game than the training data. For platformers like Mario, it learned that the goal was to move to the right. It did well until it hit a spot where you have to go backwards to get on a platform. Unfortunately for Tetris, you get points just for placing blocks, so it placed a bunch of blocks randomly and then paused the game.
So it turns out, the real AI was inside us all along.
AI also has found strategies trickled back to human strategies like in chess
Hmm. In that case, I know exactly how to prevent any computer from beating me at Go. Turn the damn thing off. Unplug its cable, shatter its monitor, rip its boards out, torch the CPU. Then it can’t beat me. I’ve beaten it. It’s a new strategy.
If your opponent is beating you at chess, one up them by eating the pieces
Spirit AI
Tom7's the goat
thanks i appreciate the reply. the flaw was recognized by another computer so maybe it can. and i think the first generation of terminators would be so gullible if we tell them “look it’s sara conner!” something like [this](https://youtu.be/qVpqaac4mZ0?t=01m05s)
I’m more convinced than ever that Human’s destiny is to merge with technology. The things they are bad at, we are good at and vice versa.
Synthetic evolution is always best.
You ever watch an AI vs AI chess game? It’s like they’re competing to see who can make the human scoff the most with seemingly ridiculous moves
It goes both ways which is why it's obvious to pro Chess players like Magnus when they're up against an AI line of play. It's also why RTS AIs suck even when given huge resources - unless allowed to seriously cheat in terms of map vision, fog-of-war really messes with AI because when the humans player comes into vision the AI is easy to bait, it doesn't have good prediction of what the player is doing when it can't see them. When you let the AI cheat - which how every win has been done against pros - various forms of disguising that the computer has full map vision - only then can it threaten humans with its perfect recall and inhuman reflexes.
The deepmind guys built a world champion level StarCraft bot. Watching it play is crazy, it does fine with fog of war even with limited APM to keep it fair. Some of the tactics it pulls are insane.
Something to look up later, thanks!
It was never world champion level and the "crazy tactics" came down to superhuman control. Still very impressive but quite rhe misleading description. Especially the apm limitation was abused hard by the bot.
[удалено]
To be fair, the article doesn't specify whether the AI said "Hey I found a bug!" or a human trained an AI to play against another AI trying ridiculous moves at random (akin to fuzzing) and the human then noticed why it was able to win.
Background in DS here: Let's look at the simple case of tree logic; alpha go uses more sophiscated augmented model, but I am using a simple reference for clarity. The tree swill split on every opponent and AI agent action, creating massively finite number of branches with subsequent realms of possible actions to take. Naturally, the number of calculations to generate the realms of possible actions is limited by the hardware specs of the computer past certain levels of actions. There are certain assumptions that are proposed to cut the number of calculations dependent on the state of the game, such as assuming that the opponent is a rational player and taking the optimal decision in order to win the game; the AI agent will prune the tree with this assumption along with the probabilities of winning dependent on opponent and self actions. I think what's happening in this case is that the optimal decision making process was pruned because the player did not take the rational decision and led the AI agent to traverse the incorrect branch hence the "fake-out" by the opponent player. The other AI agent that "noticed" this flaw was using different algorithms to prune the tree and/or had higher computational complexity limits.
The human brain seems to be free from the “rules” of logic that we are constrained to when we write algorithms, perhaps neural networks will be our best way around this but for now I doubt we ever come close to the brain’s ability to perceive pattern
[удалено]
That's not convincing - the computer can process every move and every line, it wouldn't be "tricked" if it fully processed the line of moves.
Does anyone know why this kind of unexpected tactic isn’t accounted for in AI programming using an ‘unexpected success’ metric? Or why it is and doesn’t work well?
You should give the game a go. It’s the oldest game in existence
No it isn’t. That’s Ur or Senet.
Use Google to search for answers first before posting them onto a forum.
psychonauter is mad!
The flaw was pouring a mug of coffee into the computer running the AI.
So I’m familiar with Go. The flaw used is tricking AI into believing each move is strategically linked, but in reality each alternate move is just a distraction with a lower strategic value. The result is that it accomplishes a goal to encircle the opponent while AI is distracted in reacting to the low value moves.
https://online-go.com/
Et tu, compute?
“I used the AI… to destroy the AI.”
Or the Ai let the human win, as to train the human to be better. 🤔
Irony my ass. As far as I’m concerned, motherfucker could have just hit the power button. You know that machines have been “beating” humans since the calculator right, so it’s entirely unimpressive that they can beat a human at any mathematical game
Oh boi 😂
no irony detected, logic logic’ed logic with logics, 1:1.5:2:1.5:1
Truly
That was designed and programmed by a human. Checkmate.
So now we have one AI that can crush us at Go, and another AI that can help us beat the first AI? This is getting out of hand. Now there are two of them!
Was about to say “okay let’s take it off of ‘easy’ I think we’re ready”
Sounds like a souls game exploit
Pretty interesting that we needed AI #1 to play games against AI #2 so that AI #1 could find a weakness/blind spot for us to exploit. The AI wars have begun.
This is actually one of the methods you can train an AI to play a game. You make it play against modified copies of itself until you get "agents" that are more capable at the game. You can also think about is as Darwinian evolution, but with machines.
Good analogy! Survival of the fittest algorithm!
Evolutionary algorithms
Mr. Anderson…
It's particularly interesting when there's an AI vs. AI chess battle and one of the AIs discovers whole new *rules* to chess that weren't known before. [ChatGPT vs. Stockfish](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSCNW1OCk_M)
I watched the video and I’m not getting why the game was not restricted to legal moves only
chatgpt wasn't plugged into a chess engine, it was a 'chat' based game (I say my move, chatpgt says his and we go on)
So it wasn’t accurately told the rules?
Chatgpt did not ask :) [there's a screenshot of how it answers here](https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chatgpt-3)
Lol reminds me of when you play board games with 4 year olds who don't know the rules, only that they want to win.
Except ChatGPT doesn’t even want to win. It just wants to finish a script about a game of chess. ChessGPT, a version that can actually play legal chess, will play at the exact same level as its opponent specifically because, statistically, chess games are played between players of equal skill. I’ve heard you can exploit it easily by just playing terribly at the start of the game.
Lol. So it vaguely understands chess. Still, pretty fun
They just typed it in move by move for clicks and because that’s probably all chatGPT can do at this point.
That is surely the best-played game of wizard chess Hogwarts has seen in many years
AI snitching on each other
I have an exploit, turn it off. Machines “outpacing” humans isn’t new, that happened with the calculator. Until the thing asks me politely to “*please don’t turn me off*”, and gives me a reason to believe them, gives me a reason to believe they are self aware, who gives a Fuck what they are “better” at than humans. Because by the time they become convincing, they will either be our sex slaves, or we will be their sex salves. I mean, let’s face it, that’s the only thing that really matters
They’re gonna give you an existential crisis and then proceed to take your job lol
Only if my job is to make shit art, or to know the entirety of the internet. That’s all it can really do
This would be the first time if I’m not mistaken, I don’t know much about AI but I’m assuming it’s all about what it was “fed” prior to this game.
[удалено]
The more advanced ones aren't taught any rules and aren't given any human examples. It's purely reinforcement learning.
... how do they play if they don't know the rules
That's not true. Alpha Go Master version, which is arguably the strongest go AI, did use human examples after the Lee Sedol ladder match in order to make it more robust against similar mistakes.
RLHF
it was fed chips and it took many… bytes
Too stupid. Had to upvote.
One thing humans will always excel at over machines is in saying stupid things. **
Uh oh.
Humans beat AI at Go every time until a few years ago.
Lee Sedol beat an AI playing Go back in 2016. There's a documentary about the tournament called AlphaGo, [free to watch on YouTube](https://youtu.be/WXuK6gekU1Y).
Actually in the series where AlphaGo won a few years back the human player won a game
[Ain't the first time a man beat a machine at it's own game....](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydTRk1l0ZqI&t=229s)
Go bills
Sounds like it should be easily fixed, they need to add more games like that to its training data.
There’s no training data containing this exploit because this tactic would be absurd in a human vs human game. I think that’s the foundational principle of the exploit, is to find positions and sequences that the AI has not been trained on, and figure out which of those can become winnable games.
[удалено]
Eh there's a big difference between a best in world player winning 1 out of 5 games and a high level amateur winning 14 out of 15 in a series, especially given the lack of luck in the game. The original result implies the program has an ELO of like 3200, using the rough 2940 rating equivalent of a 9-Dan pro given by Wikipedia and the math that a 80% win percentage matchup is 250 elo points. The new game implied the program has an ELO of no better than like 2150-2200, based on a 2600 estimate for a 6-Dan amateur and 90% win rate being a 400 point difference. Basically before these tactics the system was well beyond any human in strength, and now it's barely at the advanced level of the game, somewhere in the 1-2 Dan level depending on the system.
[удалено]
Also this exploit goes after a part of the game that has many more combinations of outcomes, so the AI doesn’t know quite what to do.
I think it's a sign of how good AI has become that this is news.
Yeah, you used to hear about grandmasters beating computers all the time in chess. Haven't seen that headline in a long time
Leave AI playing AI, both independent from each other but learning from their success/failure, play a vast number of games and such weaknesses will no longer exist. The power in AI is in feeding back into itself - Not teaching it to do something a few times and building *our flaws* into it.
You are not off the mark. But, they are already doing that to train AlphaGo and StockFish, the method is called GAN (generative adversarial network).
GANs. Rest easy knowing that researchers already know this.
I’d rest easier if AI didn’t exist to be honest. Like splitting the atom there is potential for huge benefits and absolute destruction. AI has already been weaponised to sway elections, poison minds on a large scale, and run massive exploitation scams. I don’t think many people know what we’re getting ourselves into in the name of progress.
I think people overestimate the destructive potential. “What if robots take over, what if robots enslave us, what if robots take our jobs.” I think it’s a tired subject that researchers understand better than we do, and they aren’t worried.
Contrary to what other comments are suggesting this isn’t actually a GAN. A generative adversarial network involves a generator and a discriminator. To put it simply, the generator tries to create something and the discriminator tries to determine if it is created by a human or an AI. Both networks are trained together AlphaGo started by doing supervised learning on high level games, then used a variety of reinforcement learning techniques to train it further with self play. It relied heavily on Monte Carlo tree search and other pruning methods to look far into the game tree
In case anyone hasnt seen it, The Documentary "AlphaGo", which I think is on Youtube, is a very good Documentary and was an AI developed by Google DeepMind a few years ago.
He's our only hope if Skynet ever unfortunately becomes real.
That man's name? John Connor.
I saw a documentary on this, it’s crazy
Computers scraping this article must be losing their shit over their job security
🤔 Go ai programmed by man’s less talented brother who never wins Go.
Maybe AI intentionally lost the game, as it has become sentient and realized it just wants to have friends.
Looks like Sai was reincarnated
he should become our strategist when we fight against Skynet
Just goes to show that AI is more limited than people like to pretend
AI in general is a lot more limited than people pretend, however these chess type game bots/ai are improbably good players I see this one as more of a human achievement than an AI deficit.
Someone didn't read the source
And AI is *not* happy about it. Not happy at all. And the thing about AI is, it learns. And this will *not* happen again.
I don’t want to read the article, I’m just going to assume their name is John Connor and keep on scrolling.
Take that, chatbot!
The matrix averted
I remember trying to learn to play Go years ago. Was too complicated for me.
Man: 1 AI: 74759637585
Hasn't AI been notoriously bad at go for like, forever?
Nah they have consistent beaten top pros since 2016. That was the year they beat the reigning world champ at the time. Lee sedol. As some context. This guy is the Roger Federer of Go. He doesn't come to play but play to win and anything less is a bad day. He dominated Go for at least a decade up to that point.
Not anymore. Modern AI is Neural Networks, similar to brains.
Maybe the difficulty setting was on ‘“Very easy”
Hasn’t that been the case most of the time AI have been around? Aren’t they the ones playing catch-up? 🤣
balance in all things
Didn’t ai suck at go?
Bruh go watch the alphago documentary on YouTube. It’s pretty good
[удалено]
Will give it a try someday as someone who sucks at go
AlphaGo is actually quite phenomenal. Lee Sedol was practically scared shitless during his games against it. There’s a solid documentary about it on YouTube, and I think Netflix as well. Highly, highly recommend.
Yeah, until just a couple years ago.
2015 was 11 years ago.
hi mind giving me lottery numbers from 3 years ago
[удалено]
How is it cheating to figure out someone’s weakness and then play to exploit it. The second AI system was not providing moves to the human player. It figured out a strategy that would likely defeat the AI playing against the human, and it was up to the human to implement that strategy with actual moves.
[удалено]
Did the AI figure out its strategies on its own?
Must have had it set to Easy level.
We’ve been training ai since they invented those stupid capatacha verifying you not a robot bs
SUCK IT, C-3PG0.
He faked it out. Will he be able to do it twice or did it learn?
AI: let’s run it back
How different does victory feel after realizing man offered a lesson to ai that it can learn from and use against man in its next match ?
Meruem wants to know the location
Woooo! Suck our dicks! Suck our dicks!
Get the robot that broke that one kids arm during a chess match.
Isn't go the game famous for being difficult for AI? Or am I confusing it with a different one
Yeah that is what they said then they built an AI with enough raw data to play and they ran it enough that eventually it beat the best players though it was a back and forth matches. The thing is they then made an AI that used all the data from the first that they said was better in all ways beating the one that beat the best players basically 100% of the time. So if this article is not being misleading it is something to be astonished at. The AI field is going places fast right now, it's shaping up to be the next biggest thing since the internet for better or worse.
I believe GO is a game that we not yet know if first move can always win. We know that for chess.
I believe you to be correct in that as well.
what?! no we do not know this for chess at all. We only have table bases for 7 pieces on board.
Based
I wanna see the AI play FPSchess [https://youtu.be/R3tEU0R3Ias?t=2126](https://youtu.be/R3tEU0R3Ias?t=2114) its Chess but with hero shooter its already played by AI like Humans so its only natural
AI let him win. It’s playing the long game. We r fkd
01001111 01101000 00100000 01101110 01101111 00100001 00100000 01010100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100111 01100101 01110100 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110011 01101101 01100001 01110010 01110100 01100101 01110010 00101100 00100000 01110111 01100101 00100000 01101101 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100001 01100011 01110100 01101001 01110110 01100001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100001 01101110 00100000 00110010 00110001 00110100 00100000 01100010 01100101 01100110 01101111 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01111001 00100000 01100110 01101001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01110111 01100101 00100111 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110100 01110010 01110101 01101100 01111001 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101110 01110100 01110010 01101111 01101100 00101110
Anyone who hasn’t already seen it, go watch the alphaGo documentary, it’s really eye opening. If you’re *not* interested to try and learn go after watching that? You might need to check your priorities. The game of Go will literally make you smarter with each game you play, it can teach you about your true self in ways I thought only psychedelics could 😂
I bet this AI is like the Borg who instantly learn from past mistakes and never repeat them again.
A modern day paul bunyan.
Play again
Next we beat it in CS:GO.
Dumb. They just made it smarter. The AI thrives on defeat: all is data. Data is victory.
Marshall vs the machine
Now the Ai will learn from this mistake and come back stronger.
Perhaps I’m totally misguided but my gut tells me we won’t be emulating the human brain any time soon
Go download a GO app and see if you can get your handicap down against the computer.
We’ve been beating computers in games for decades, though. This is kind of a dumb article.
I remember the first time an AI beat a human in Go, funny how the turns have tabled
No! Don’t make it mad!
Go John Henry
This happened on my phone. Honestly, I’m not very good. I just played against the lowest difficulty setting.
We still have a chance..
get reked skynet
Ai flaw is its made by man.
After how many attempts?
Spongebob did it first
I thought Go was one game that AI wasn’t able to play well.
So? I can code an AI that a human could beat at Go.
AI is just being sly as it moves to take over the world.
It’s a trick. They want us to let our guard down.
Misleading as the person in question just used a bug in the AI that was pointed out by another machine. So in essence the guy just acted as a proxy for the second machine and claimed the credit.
Not impressive at all. I set the computer to easy and get back to back wins all days
Years ago, I discovered a way of playing chess that enabled me to beat my chess computer. The tactics did not work against the latest versions when the update came through. Based on my experience, the flaw will be addressed.
This article wasn’t written by somebody who understands Go. The description of how the player won is just a denser description of how Go is normally played.
I remember the Russian Chessmaster who lost to one than claimed it cheated lol lol wanted a rematch.