Apparently 2 stones is a huge advantage. An estimate is that the computer is roughly 4-600 ELO stronger on an even match.

Also, the human played a strategy tailored to that huge initial advantage. He said that the AI did not handle this particularly well, and played high probability moves instead of trying to lure him into a mistake.

Also, even though this was the best Go engine, it was not running on a supercomputer, and had a relatively limited amount of time per move.

So, this was an important victory for a human, but not a sign that humans are now stronger than AIs at Go.

▲

kadoban 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Also, the human played a strategy tailored to that huge initial advantage. He said that the AI did not handle this particularly well, and played high probability moves instead of trying to lure him into a mistake.

Yeah, katago's training is not really focused at all on handicap games, because it's by nature learning from even games against similar-strength opponents.

It doesn't have specific training from playing in a way to exploit a weaker player. In a handicap game you have to give your opponent opportunities to fuck up if you want to play optimally.

If a move loses 0.0005 points if the opponent plays optimally, katago won't play it even if there's ~zero chance a weaker player would play it right.

There have been go AIs that tried to train more directly on uneven opponents, one called "sai" comes to mind, but katago has huge advantages otherwise and won out over the others (for very good reason, it's a great project).

▲

rudi-c 6 hours ago | parent [-]

While AlphaGo originally only had win rate as a metric, modern Go AIs have more knobs, including an evaluation of "complexity".

Just stating this off the top of my head so I could be misremembering, but I heard that the KataGo settings used were tweaked to favor complexity. This was most apparent in Game 1 which Shin Jinseo lost, where the AI had an unusual opening. However, the last game was quite plain leading me to wonder whether that setting was present in the last game (or at all).

	▲	foota 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ah this is interesting. Essentially the idea is that the compute can try and move into positions that it can evaluate but humans might have trouble evaluating because of the board state's complexity?

▲

wslh 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> So, this was an important victory for a human, but not a sign that humans are now stronger than AIs at Go.

Another way to look at this: Go's handicap system gives us a genuinely interesting metric for the distance between a human and a machine at this specific game. Instead of just "computers beat humans" we get a quantified gap.

▲

prmph 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The question of whether machines or humans are stronger is moot, isn't it?

In any intellectual contest between human and machine, all the machine winning implies is that the endeavor is algorithmic.

The machine can be given practically unlimited memory and compute; we consider it cheating if the human would use memory aids. The machine could be implemented as many agents cooperating; we'd think it's not right if thousands of humans collaborated to face the machine, etc.

So statements like "not a sign that humans are now stronger than AIs at Go" are pretty meaningless, IMO

	▲	fn-mote 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> not a sign that humans are now stronger than AIs at Go Totally wrongheaded, actually, since the computer gave the human a 2 stone advantage from the start.