Hacker News Reader

Comment by areyousure | Hacker News Reader

> Many boldly and confidently predicted we wouldn't see a computer beat the Go world champion in our lifetimes.

Can anyone provide some written references to this effect? Last time I searched (extensively), I couldn't really find anyone saying this.

View on HN

What kind of source do you want? It's a saying in the go community, people believed (including me) that a bot couldn't beat a human in our lifetime, some people had more extreme view and thought that it would never be possible.

Anything written. I'll be particularly happy with higher "quality" sources -- books, quotations in newspapers, etc. -- but honestly, I'm not that picky and will accept an anonymous comment on a random forum.

"Fotland, an early computer Go innovator, also worked as chief engineer of Hewlett Packard’s PA-RISC processor in the 70s, and tested the system with his Go program. “There’s some kind of mental leap that has to happen to get you past that block, and the programs ran into the same issue. The issue is being able to look at the whole board, not the just the local fights.”

Fotland and others tried to figure out how to modify their programs to integrate full-board searches. They met with some limited success, but by 2004, progress stalled again, and available options seemed exhausted. Increased processing power was moot. To run searches even one move deeper would require an impossibly fast machine. The most difficult game looked as if it couldn’t be won."

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-world-of-computer-go/

The article then goes on to discuss how Monte Carlo was the real breakthrough.

Thank you for the source. I believe this is a good written example of how conservative estimates were as recently as May of 2014.

Nonetheless, the quoted estimate in the article (mentioned twice, including in the second sentence) is "I think maybe ten years", ie 2024, which while inaccurate is probably "in our lifetimes".

There are a lot of quotes in that article though. And a number are in the vein of not being sure how they were going to get from where they were to better-than-human. Not my field in any case but I think it's fair to say that there was a lot of skepticism about even the general path going forward even relatively recently.

It seems unlikely that a computer will be programmed to drub a strong human player any time soon, Dr. Reiss said. ''But it's possible to make an interesting amount of progress, and the problem stays interesting,'' he said. ''I imagine it will be a juicy problem that people talk about for many decades to come.''[1]

Not quite what you are after, but it's pretty clear that he didn't think it would be beating the world champion in 14 years.

[1] NY Times, 2002, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/01/technology/in-an-ancient-g...

That was before companies like Google were building datacenter-size computers for fun.

"Experts had predicted it would take another decade for AI systems to beat professional Go players."

http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/have-we-hit-a-major-ar...

FWIW, before AlphaGo defeated Fan Hui 2-dan last year, everyone was saying that would not be possible before 2025 or so. That was the consensus.

People that try to predict the future in ai are breathing hot air more often then not.

Serious predictions actually inferred from the progress of existing (MCTS and others before) bots, which was something like 1 stone every two years (I don't recall the details, but it's easy to find out there). Top professionals were estimated to be something like 10 stones stronger than the best bot at 2008, so 2025 wouldn't sound too conservative.

"At the US Congress 2008, he [Myungwan Kim] also played a historic demonstration game against MoGo running on an 800 processor supercomputer. With a 9 stone handicap, MoGo won by 1.5 points. At the 2009 congress, he played another demonstration game against Many Faces of Go running on 32 processors. Giving 7 stones handicap, Kim won convincingly by resignation."

(Kim Myung Wan (born 1978) is a 9d Korean professional who has taken up residence in the Los Angeles area as of 2008)

More information here, with a nice graph:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?ComputerGo

http://i.imgur.com/RvQsf6v.png

You can see progress seemed to be slow at 2012.

Go seemed to progress in a lot more fits and starts than did chess (which, admittedly, probably had a lot more effort put into it). Prior to 2005 or so, Go programs were relatively weak and there were people working on them who were saying that they didn't really see a path forward.

Then people hit on using Monte Carlo which was the big step forward you show in your graphs. But then, that progress seemed to stall to the degree that various people were quoted in a Wired article a couple years ago about how they weren't sure what was going to happen.

Yet, here we are today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com