I consider <i>AlphaGo - The Movie</i> [1] to be a timeless classic that will never feel outdated. In my opinion, it surpasses even Hollywood productions, despite being based on true events and filmed live with real people. I'm ranking it as #2, though, because I still believe Steve Jobs' 2007 iPhone presentation [2] is the greatest live tech event ever captured on film. Hearing the crowd screaming when seeing some tricks and techniques ( eg. <i>slide to unlock</i>, <i>pinch to zoom</i> and <i>scrolling up</i>) on how to use the phone does really triggers some haptic feedback in my heart because we are now so used to these tricks that were pure magic back then.<p>______________________________<p>1.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuK6gekU1Y" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuK6gekU1Y</a><p>2.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQKMoT-6XSg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQKMoT-6XSg</a>
Well, Bridge remains unconquered, although it is unclear whether it is because of disinterest or incapability. As I have highlighted before, the day a computer false-cards will be the day.
(False-carding - playing a certain card with the primary intention of deceiving the opponents and forcing an error)
There are a lot of parallels between rule-based games like Go and rule-based formal systems like ZFC. It’s interesting that the same techniques used for AlphaGo have <i>not</i> worked nearly as well for finding proofs of famous open problems that we suspect are both 1) decidable within ZFC and 2) have a “reasonable” minimal proof length.<p>What aspect of efficiently exploring the combinatorial explosion in possibilities of iterated rule-based systems is the human brain still currently doing much better than machines?
<a href="https://www.moderndescartes.com/essays/gnugo_to_agz/" rel="nofollow">https://www.moderndescartes.com/essays/gnugo_to_agz/</a><p>I happen to have recently written up a longer history of Go AI. If you're wondering about what is special about Go in particular or what generalizes to other problems, give it a read.
Coincidentally, I just watched the hour long documentary that DeepMind made about the match [1]. It talks a lot about the two moves - though not really in detail.<p>To a non-go player like myself, both moves 37 and 78 seemed completely arbitrary. I mean, much of the video talks about how it's impossible to calculate all the future moves like in chess, yet move 37 of a possible ~300 move game is called out as genius, and move 78 is a God Hand.<p>For the layman like myself, it seemed a bit inconsistent.<p>The thing that made me smile was how history repeated itself. Sedol predicted a 5-0 win against the program. Kasparov was pretty cocky as well in the 1990s. You'd think someone would have warned him! "Hey Sedol. Cool your jets, these guys wouldn't be spending so much money just to embarrass themselves."<p>DeepMind was definitely way more polite than IBM, so that was good to see. The Deep Blue team were sorta jerks to Gary.<p>1. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuK6gekU1Y" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuK6gekU1Y</a>
Interesting that Lee Sedol losing at Go was the big opening act in the modern AI wave, but it ended up coming from a completely different technology that has effectively faded into the background.