Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

en.yna.co.kr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 554 posts

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#531

Post by Xc43 »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #375
Xc43 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some realities cannot be reduced nor should they be reduced to analogies like "hive". Our social reality is irreductible being the most complex one known. Hive mind as an emergent property still implies a common thing for which one lives. Or a queen. A peer that is one's reason to live. The closest thing I can see to a hive mind is the army. We are all different and it is not because a person one talks with does not…

> Some realities cannot be reduced nor should they be reduced to analogies like "hive". Our social reality is irreductible being the most complex one known. I don't understand how that has any bearing on whether human society can form hive minds or hive mind like entities. > Hive mind as an emergent property still implies a common thing for which one lives. Or a queen. A peer that is one's reason to live. No that is…

Mindless conformity is inhuman. We are more tribal than "hival".

Thanks for precising hive mind, I understand it better now.

Hive mind can be seen as uncritical conformity or collective intelligence. Because it can be understood as uncritical conformity I will use another word/concept. Like tribal mind. Because it suggests tribes (plural) that one belongs to or not, status, etc

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#532

Post by allovernow »

tripzilch wrote: post #521
allovernow wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think that as machines become smarter and smarter, it is good that we dive a bit more in our philosophical world and reach for what makes us human. That's a recurring theme in Ghost in the Shell, at least the anime series. That as the line between human and machine is blurred, the general trend is in the direction of homogeneity, but here and there you still see people doing "deontological" things, ostensibly as a…

On the other hand, insects are also kind of like NN powered robots, and they don't (necessarily?) have individuality. Especially not ones that form colonies, like ants or bees.

I don't know if we have an answer to the question of whether insects have personalities. But perhaps their intelligence is not general enough, they're not, as far as we know, sentient. Maybe that's the difference between an automaton and a soul

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#533

Post by tuesdayrain »

To me the answer is obviously that the car should prioritize its driver at all costs. If that requires flattening a crowd of baby orphans in some contrived hypothetical scenario then so be it. I refuse to ever operate a car that could make the decision to kill me.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#534

Post by michalu »

breatheoften wrote: post #374

I sympathize. It used to be that you might be able to believe that there is some kind of art behind go, some sort of abstract beauty to it, and that the pursuit of this beauty is the path to being good at go ... But the defeat of the tactics born from this mindset by MCTS at least for now lay bare the fact that the path to being good at go is actually to probabilistically sample the phase space of the game and perfor…

I don't follow AlphaGo but there is a LOT to learn from AlphaZero in chess ... engines are already changing the way chess is played.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#535

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

mr_toad wrote: post #467
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> But the defeat of the tactics born from this mindset by MCTS at least for now lay bare the fact that the path to being good at go is actually to probabilistically sample the phase space of the game and perform impossibly mindless statistics on the game outcome an enormous number of times ... This is a rationalist opinion that is attractive because it appears unbiased, unwilling to make any concessions to human nat…

> In particular, human players do none of the extremely tedious, extremely computationally intensive maths that computer players have to do. This sounds like a Chinese room argument. Performing computationally expensive maths doesn’t make the computer intelligent. But that says nothing about the intelligence of the maths itself.

But I didn't say anything about machine intelligence. My comment is about human intelligence.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#536

Post by jackcviers3 »

braythwayt wrote: post #527
jackcviers3 wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a world where no human contribution matters because a different species already thought of it. No improvisation on any instrument can be novel because a machine already played it exactly like you would have. A world where your children look to a philosopher machine for guidance, because it is wiser, kinder, and deeper than you could ever be. Human existence will still occur, however, our species's defining ch…

> Imagine a world where no human contribution matters because a different species already thought of it You are begging the question in in the original sense of the phrase "begging the question." You start by stating your conclusion as an axiom! You state that "no human contribution matters because a different species already thought of it" as if that is necessarily true. It isn't. We choose what matters. I play Bach…

Your playing doesn't "matter" in the way Bach's original composition "matters." One of these things has been remembered for hundreds of years, and one of these things would never have been remembered unless you reinterpreted the work in some novel way that reached millions of people.

The fact that Bach's compositions can be encoded as a number doesn't mean that it wouldn't take a genius of Bach's level to deserialize that particular number, which could literally be deserialized into a representation of any arbitrary thing in existence with the correct algorithm, any less novel when it was created. The same holds true of your comment. Just because I declare 1001 represents a beautifully unique masterpiece, once it is decoded, does not make that masterpiece actually exist.

Bach was important. In a world with general AI no human will have the ability to be important in that way ever again. At first AI will create crude imitations of human art. Then it will create hundreds of billions of creative works that are more human than human. Then it will create artworks that surpass our ability to comprehend. I don't know about you, but the inability to do anything novel as a species, to learn anything new, is a terribly bleak possibility.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#537

Post by Iv »

biolurker1 wrote: post #524
Iv wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you are other readers are interested, what you describe is an old philosophical debate spanning mostly morals but as you point out, also the pursuit of happiness and other areas. It is the opposition between consequentialism (=what is important is the result of your actions) versus deontologism (=what is important is what you are doing, not the result). I think that as machines become smarter and smarter, it…

> There is not rational reason to like survival. To love our children, to do what we call good. Of course there is and very well described in evolutionary science

This is an is/ought confusion. You can explain why something is that way, but you can't explain why it must be that way.

You can explain why our survival instinct evolved so it is tempting to jump to the conclusion that we ought to survive but it is a fallacy (called the naturalistic fallacy): saying that something being natural means it is good.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#538

Post by Iv »

allovernow wrote: post #483
Iv wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you are other readers are interested, what you describe is an old philosophical debate spanning mostly morals but as you point out, also the pursuit of happiness and other areas. It is the opposition between consequentialism (=what is important is the result of your actions) versus deontologism (=what is important is what you are doing, not the result). I think that as machines become smarter and smarter, it…

>I think that as machines become smarter and smarter, it is good that we dive a bit more in our philosophical world and reach for what makes us human. That's a recurring theme in Ghost in the Shell, at least the anime series. That as the line between human and machine is blurred, the general trend is in the direction of homogeneity, but here and there you still see people doing "deontological" things, ostensibly as a…

I don't think it is very hard to make a personality or an individuality appear. Feed GPT-2 a lot of opinnonated texts about itself and you will already see a bit of it emerge.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#539

Post by fiatjaf »

Raidion wrote: post #441
fiatjaf wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I was never a grandmaster, but my amateur interest in Chess was killed completely after I realized it was impossible to beat computers. Then I switched to Go... and now I don't have a game to play anymore.

This seems weird, I don't know you would want to link your enjoyment with a game to it's unsolvability. Like don't you enjoy a game to enjoy a game? You can't beat Carlsen either, but you enjoyed the game at your level. Now computers are Carlsen +1, but how you enjoy the game shouldn't be affected. Especially since deep blue won in '97 and the game is still very alive and well, it hasn't been killed by computers but…

I'll (probably) never beat Carlsten, but he _can_ be beaten. For some reason that seems to make a difference.

Re: Go master Lee Se-dol says he quits, unable to win over AI Go players

#540

Post by jmatthews »

timje1 wrote: post #510
SubiculumCode wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2004 2007 a human won. Wow.

There was an interesting article a couple of years back, positing that the years that humans won coincide with unusually warm weather. The takeaway was the humans have a superior cooling system for efficient long distance running, compared to most animal's superior sprinting capabilities.

I believe only humans and dogs hunt via stamina. You can walk a horse to death or simply chase an antelope until it overheats and dies.
Post reply on HN