Algorithm helps computers beat human Go players

Scientific American ^ | February 21, 2007 | Andras Gergely

[DoSomethingAboutIt]

Thought this was interesting since the "Go" challenge is frequently brought up when AI (especially chess) comes up.

[DoSomethingAboutIt]

For the ping list

[FLOutdoorsman]

ChessBase has pretty much allowed a home computer to be a GM in Chess.

I'd like to see the GO software in action.

[Disambiguator]

algorithm = frequency with which Al Gore shows up to give speeches about Global Warming.

[Señor Zorro]

Cool. Is there anyplace where we can read more about the algorithm itself? What kind of asymptotic runtime does it have?

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

If AI gets advanced enough, machines can replace almost every human occupation. Then humans can have a sort of permanent vacation, with robots as slaves (the word robot is supposed to be derived from the Czech word for slave(?)).

[theFIRMbss]

>the most powerful machines have failed at the popular Asian board game "Go"

Even computers
get bored playing that damn game.
It's soccer with rocks.

[Tijeras_Slim]

From the sci-fi book RUR (Rossom's Universal Robots) in the early 20's.

They're built to make houses for man, but man gets in the way so the robots kill them all off so they can "build many houses".

[TChris]

ChessBase has pretty much allowed a home computer to be a GM in Chess.

Yeah, except through massive look-ups rather than calculation, right?

[KoRn]

"If AI gets advanced enough, machines can replace almost every human occupation.".

The Matrix keeps coming to mind lol.

[Joe 6-pack]

All your Go are belong to us. Make your time.

[theFIRMbss]

>Is there anyplace where we can read more about the algorithm itself?

Go software using a similar method, called UCT (Upper Confidence bounds applied to Trees)...

[OSHA]

In S Korea GO is a TV spectator sport complete with commentators.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Yep. There's that. The "Laws" of Robotics can have some loopholes. Even if robots can't have aspirations for power, then can still be a threat (i.e. if they are ordered to run the world efficiently but decide that humanity is making the planet more inefficient--so they decide to wipe out humankind; similar to your synopsis of RUR).

[FLOutdoorsman]

Not at all. Any current Desktop using say, Fritz 10 or Junior 10 would have a 2500 plus elo.

[DoSomethingAboutIt]

Wouldn't wiping out humankind actually violate the law that says don't hurt humans?

[KoRn]

Good points. We need to be careful about how "AI" is implemented. Eventhough something can be programmed not to kill or harm any living thing, if the programming allows for learning and adjustment for what is learned the initial programming may be insignificant over time. This is very fascinating even if it could cause our eventual undoing. lol

There really IS a such thing as being just too dammed smart for our own good.

[-YYZ-]

I would note there's nothing really "AI" about these programs, however. It's just a brute force method, in this case improved a bit. The computer doesn't "understand" the game at all, and this "intelligence" most likely can't be generalized for use in any other sort of problem.

I really don't think there is any chance we will ever produce a true AI until we have some real understanding of what "conciousness" and "intelligence" really mean, and how they arise in our brains. Right now we don't have that understanding. A computer can do all sorts of calculations much faster and more accurately than I can - does that make it more "intelligent"?

[adorno]

so the computer has to think forward all the way till the end of the game and emulate the outcome of each alternative move

ChessBase has pretty much allowed a home computer to be a GM in Chess.

Yeah, except through massive look-ups rather than calculation, right?

Exactly what I was thinking.

Thinking is not something that a computer can do. Not on its own. A computer is a combination of machine with a set of programs and massive file capabilities that can only accept instructions from a "thinking human" in order to "emulate" what a human being can do. Without the human, the machine is a pile of junk. Even if the machine were to be "programmed" to do most activities that a human can do, including some seemingly intelligent tasks, it would still be a series of instructions entered into it by a human being.

People may want to call that "artificial intelligence" but it's not real intelligence in the sense that it could really out-think a human being.

[DoSomethingAboutIt]

A computer can do all sorts of calculations much faster and more accurately than I can - does that make it more "intelligent"?

Well that would depend on how many things can be broken down into a series of calculations? All of those things (IMHO) will eventually be done better by a computer. I think we are going to be disappointed/excited by how many things can be broken down like that.