221–230 of 554 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point a person who uses AI doesn't need to be a doctor anymore.
Pareto principle predicts AI will get to 80% fairly rapidly, but it will take a really, really long time to get to 100%. I think we’ll see a lot of things similar to “AI x-ray technician” fields where people are trained to read AI outputs. Doctors will do higher levels decisions.
While I can understand Lee Se-dol's frustration, I think there are better lessons to learn from Kasparov's acceptance after the Deep Blue vs Kasparov matches. Cyborg chess is the future of chess. Period. Chess players use computers to train themselves and explore openings in human-only settings, while programmers / cyborgs play correspondence chess. Go is not finished as a game. A new tool, MCTS + Neural nets, has be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Come on, none of us are really "human" anymore since the advent of cell phones. We all use our cyborg-capabilities to search the internet and fact-check ourselves every day. Programmers use stack-overflow to teach themselves programming and remember obscure details (using our cyborg capabilities to tag, search, and sift through information ever faster and faster). Sure and any of us could jump on a motorcycle and f…
> Won't the winner be the one who just takes AlphaGo's recommended move every time without changing anything? No. Consider this scheme. I take my copy of AlphaGo and for a full year, I'll build a database of all opening positions AlphaGo is willing to explore. I'll rank these opening positions from "best" (Black-wins with most consistency) to "worst" (White-wins with most consistency). I'll put all of this informatio…
Human + computer might still beat computer in Go - this was true for a few years in chess, and even now to some extent in correspondence chess - but what you describe isn't really that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've woven this sentiment into my philosophy. I feel computers (and the networks between them) are a natural evolution of our hive mind. When we first started taking spoken language and committing it to writing, we created a hive mind that extended beyond a generation. Prior to that point, everything was passed on through observation of other humans (observing behavior, observing speech, etc.). This meant everything…
I am not a bee. I have no queen. I am not part of a hive, I am a social individual. This hive mind over-simplification is ridiculous and to me: disgusting. As if we were one
You're a bee, dawg.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should note that Kasparov was actually wrong at the time. Alpha Zero has proved this by smashing Stockfish every time it plays it. The contemporary thinking around chess theory including the measures that DeepBlue would brute-force towards were inherently lossy and nobody figured it hard enough. Technically, at that time DeepBlue could have been beaten by understanding Alpha Zero's theorems before Alpha Zero disco…
> Alpha Zero has proved this by smashing Stockfish every time it plays it. Google played Alpha Zero vs Stockfish under their own conditions. I think this was a mistake to stay in the labs by themselves. I think Google would have benefited from participating in WCCC 2019 for example, where Johnny (1200x core cluster) won the day. ---------- Its a completely different field when you're actually competing against someon…
Isn't saying AI is the future of Go like saying cars are the future of sprinting? I mean who cares if machines are faster/better/smarter than us at any particular task? That is true in millions of ways where humans still enjoy competing against each other. Maybe what's needed is just a perspective change where we stop thinking of Go as being against any other agent and make it, like every other human competition, aga…
Another way to look at your metaphor is that research on exercise physiology has shown the enormous importance of rest and proper nutrition during training. Prior to cars, getting from place to place and access to optimal nutrition were both mediated by transport over long distances. AI is the future of Go because it enables those new perspectives and new processes by which human players can learn. AI is smart-dumb,…
I've spent so many years playing and hearing about how Go will not be solved in our lifetime that the day AlphaGo won 4/5 games v Lee Sedol marked my personal timeline into what came before and after. I walked around all day in a daze watching people as they go about their daily lives as if nothing had happened. I've heard it said that man landing on the moon was like that for them, but I didn't understand as it was…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Garry Kasparov might be a bad example, since his immediate reaction to losing to DeepBlue was to accuse the IBM programmers standing on stage next to him of cheating (through human intervention in DeepBlue's moves). But generally, humans have accepted computer supremacy in chess pretty well. Everyone realizes that a better chess-playing entity exists out there (in everyone's pocket, in fact). That doesn't make the co…
Talking with a co-worker the other day, I unthinkingly articulated a question that made us both stop and think a bit: "Could a human beat a computer at chess?" Like, now. 20 years after Kasparov. Could someone do it? The question feels daring somehow.
While I can understand Lee Se-dol's frustration, I think there are better lessons to learn from Kasparov's acceptance after the Deep Blue vs Kasparov matches. Cyborg chess is the future of chess. Period. Chess players use computers to train themselves and explore openings in human-only settings, while programmers / cyborgs play correspondence chess. Go is not finished as a game. A new tool, MCTS + Neural nets, has be…
> Come on, none of us are really "human" anymore since the advent of cell phones. We all use our cyborg-capabilities to search the internet and fact-check ourselves every day. Programmers use stack-overflow to teach themselves programming and remember obscure details (using our cyborg capabilities to tag, search, and sift through information ever faster and faster). Sure and any of us could jump on a motorcycle and f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Come on, none of us are really "human" anymore since the advent of cell phones. We all use our cyborg-capabilities to search the internet and fact-check ourselves every day. Programmers use stack-overflow to teach themselves programming and remember obscure details (using our cyborg capabilities to tag, search, and sift through information ever faster and faster). Sure and any of us could jump on a motorcycle and f…
> Won't the winner be the one who just takes AlphaGo's recommended move every time without changing anything? No. Consider this scheme. I take my copy of AlphaGo and for a full year, I'll build a database of all opening positions AlphaGo is willing to explore. I'll rank these opening positions from "best" (Black-wins with most consistency) to "worst" (White-wins with most consistency). I'll put all of this informatio…
Go does not have openings. It has reasonable choices to make, with an insane branching factor, with few moves making much of a difference by themselves. Therefore your database will only extend a few moves, and all of the positions that it winds up with will still be very close to even. So your database confers very little advantage.
If you have alpha-go play itself a thousand times, it is unlikely that by move 10 you will wind up with the same board position twice.
This is exactly the problem that made Go so hard for computers in the first place. Alpha-beta search is useless within practical limitations of computer hardware.
That said in a different game, such as chess, your strategy would work very well indeed. (Which is why all decent computer programs have an opening book.)