11–20 of 554 posts
It would be a bit sad if the fact that there's good AI players discourages future generations from Go, Chess and other games. Weirdly the AI will have destroyed the basis for its own existence, at least in this niche.
> Even if I become the number one, there is an entity that cannot be defeated Hard for me to empathize with this argument for his retirement. If we can't outrun a car, does that make running competitions pointless? The existence of AlphaGo doesn't diminish the triumph of being a number one human player in any way.
> Even if I become the number one, there is an entity that cannot be defeated Hard for me to empathize with this argument for his retirement. If we can't outrun a car, does that make running competitions pointless? The existence of AlphaGo doesn't diminish the triumph of being a number one human player in any way.
Before cars, there were horses. We humans are well aware of the fact that our physical ability is not our competitive edge. What about Go? No animal or machine could play it as well as humans do.. until AlphaGo came along. I think that is where the sense of loss comes from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before cars, there were horses. We humans are well aware of the fact that our physical ability is not our competitive edge. What about Go? No animal or machine could play it as well as humans do.. until AlphaGo came along. I think that is where the sense of loss comes from.
Not actually true. In a sprint race, yes, but in a 24 hr race the human will outdistance the horse.
> "With the debut of AI in Go games, I've realized that I'm not at the top even if I become the number one through frantic efforts,” There is something sad about this comment. It’s as if, even while standing at the peak, he doesn’t grasp what being “at top” actually is. Would Eliud Kipchoge say the same thing about a motorcycle?
A bot fine-tuned to dominate Go, or Chess, or whatever, is like a candidate fine-tuned to have perfect appeal to one specific voter. It's no surprise if such a candidate gets that one voter's vote, but it should also be no surprise if such an overtrained candidate performs horribly in the election as a whole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before cars, there were horses. We humans are well aware of the fact that our physical ability is not our competitive edge. What about Go? No animal or machine could play it as well as humans do.. until AlphaGo came along. I think that is where the sense of loss comes from.
Not actually true. In a sprint race, yes, but in a 24 hr race the human will outdistance the horse.
> "With the debut of AI in Go games, I've realized that I'm not at the top even if I become the number one through frantic efforts,” There is something sad about this comment. It’s as if, even while standing at the peak, he doesn’t grasp what being “at top” actually is. Would Eliud Kipchoge say the same thing about a motorcycle?
It can be viewed as the adaptation of a great competitor -- if a superior adversary emerges, a great competitor finds another way to win.
The rest of the article is worth the read for context. This excerpt alone didn't capture the full spirit of the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not actually true. In a sprint race, yes, but in a 24 hr race the human will outdistance the horse.
What assumptions are you basing this on, curious to know if horses have a disadvantage over longer durations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not actually true. In a sprint race, yes, but in a 24 hr race the human will outdistance the horse.
What assumptions are you basing this on, curious to know if horses have a disadvantage over longer durations.