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

In the Age of Google DeepMind, Do the Young Go Prodigies of Asia Have a Future?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 114 posts

Re: In the Age of Google DeepMind, Do the Young Go Prodigies of Asia Have a Future?

#101

Post by conanbatt »

keithpeter wrote: post #99
conanbatt wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might happen, but I hope it doesn't. I cannot speak for Chess's mindset but as a Devoted Go Player, we are collectively trying to solve it, and so we have for centuries. We play Go to explore its universe and reach utmost understanding of the game(and a glimpse of ourselves). If we ever find(which eventually we shuold) the exact single pattern that is best for both players, and we solve the game, it becomes someth…

"[...]we are collectively trying to solve it, and so we have for centuries. We play Go to explore its universe and reach utmost understanding of the game(and a glimpse of ourselves)." Is there a literature available in English that explores this attitude/practice? It sounds most interesting. You seem to derive significant meaning from the game and I'm interested in how groups of people find meaning in collective acti…

This is more of an insight you get about Go Life, not something we "All know and agree of". Hikaru No Go was a manga that talked a bit about the purpose of playing Go, about being connected with Go players since time immemorial, trying to get perfect play, and failing but getting better each generation.

This is a professional or go devotee mindset, not a typical amateur player that plays without the intent of changing Go Theory or making a legacy.

Re: In the Age of Google DeepMind, Do the Young Go Prodigies of Asia Have a Future?

#103

Post by golergka »

TL;DR: several personal stories about people who invested a lot of time in the game, general information about go in general as well as what's going on right now, and finally, a semi-answer with a quote:

“A dolphin swims faster than Michael Phelps, but we still want to see how fast he can go,” Lockhart said. “We’re humans and we care about other humans and what they can do.”

Too many words, too little information for one article.

Re: In the Age of Google DeepMind, Do the Young Go Prodigies of Asia Have a Future?

#104

Post by JabavuAdams »

saalweachter wrote: post #40
JabavuAdams wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that Banks never addressed in his Culture novels was humans wanting to become Minds. I mean if I live in a society where there are humanoids and Minds, then I want to be a Mind, with a stream-of-consciousness that includes the transition. Wouldn't this be true of many people who are in to science?

Didn't the Minds manipulate culture to channel their charges in various directions (ie, against war-like tendencies)? Maybe ascension was one of the thought-patterns they engineered out.

Intolerable.

Re: In the Age of Google DeepMind, Do the Young Go Prodigies of Asia Have a Future?

#105

Post by JabavuAdams »

david-given wrote: post #95
Filligree wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did. It isn't explicitly stated, to the best of my knowledge, but the Minds are smart enough that they could easily have done that—and were shown to engineer other parts of the society, such as their deathism. Humanity has very limited purpose in the Culture. On the surface, it looks nice, but they're effectively pets. Their willingness to ascend was cut off right along with their willingness to live. All of whi…

That's true, but it's also rather deceptive. Humans are the fundamental core of the Culture; its basic purpose is to look after human-scale people, and this shapes everything it does --- the Culture's a bit suspicious of ascension because they feel it's an abandonment of their responsibilities. Humans are, in effect, the Minds' religion. And dying is just one of several end-of-life events you can pick, if you want to…

Right, this is where things break down. It's fictional universe, after all.

What are the negative effects of having more Minds? Resource depletion?

If your cat suddenly tells you that what it wants more than anything is to learn General Relativity, then either you're having a psychotic episode, or you have to question how benevolent and ethical your coddling is for your fuzzy wuzzy slave animal.

Re: In the Age of Google DeepMind, Do the Young Go Prodigies of Asia Have a Future?

#106

Post by JabavuAdams »

david-given wrote: post #94
JabavuAdams wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that Banks never addressed in his Culture novels was humans wanting to become Minds. I mean if I live in a society where there are humanoids and Minds, then I want to be a Mind, with a stream-of-consciousness that includes the transition. Wouldn't this be true of many people who are in to science?

It's mentioned a few times - a common end-of-life event is to have your consciousness merged into a Mind. (Possibly with your friends.) It's also mentioned that you can have your mind transferred into a drone busy, and vice versa, but it's seen as terribly gauche.

Forgot about this. I guess it's more about the relative frequencies. The books, of course, aren't a representative cross-section of the society.

The manners as laws thing is cute, but I don't see it working without invasive non-consensual modification of humans.

E.g. from my own perspective, if I live in a world where there are humans and human-created demigods, then obviously I want to be one of the demigods. Not to enslave the humans, but to look inside of black holes, to travel between stars, to fully understand how biology works, etc.

So not everyone wants to be a scientist or engineer, but wouldn't almost all engineers and scientists want to wield the very best mental and technological tools of their civilization?

Re: In the Age of Google DeepMind, Do the Young Go Prodigies of Asia Have a Future?

#108

Post by fiatmoney »

meric wrote: post #54
fiatmoney wrote: post #21

The safest best for sectors of the economy that will continue to prosper under a hard-AI regime are those that involve making humans, especially the rich (eg, owners of AI-based companies) feel happy via human interactions. Go instructors are such a niche. Actually I would expect game-players and game-instructors to do better than the median profession under such a scenario, because playing games against other humans…

If that's the future, then I'd say AI companies should have to be at least 49% owned by a trust fund in which every citizen automatically has a share.

In the limit near every company becomes an AI company.

Re: In the Age of Google DeepMind, Do the Young Go Prodigies of Asia Have a Future?

#109

Post by Noos »

conanbatt wrote: post #76
tbrake wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet in chess the Carlsens, Nakamuras, Caruanas, Svidlers etc of the world still compete while knowing they have no chance of beating StockFish running on a modern desktop. The super GMs of the world - and basically all of the chess loving public with them - seem to have acknowledged it and moved on; why would such a transition be impossible in Go?

It might happen, but I hope it doesn't. I cannot speak for Chess's mindset but as a Devoted Go Player, we are collectively trying to solve it, and so we have for centuries. We play Go to explore its universe and reach utmost understanding of the game(and a glimpse of ourselves). If we ever find(which eventually we shuold) the exact single pattern that is best for both players, and we solve the game, it becomes someth…

Why would you do so? The computer will advance much, much quicker than you will because it doesn't have to memorize or be inefficiently trained to be good at Go. It will be able to solve things better than you will, and one day the game will be solved and truly pointless.

Re: In the Age of Google DeepMind, Do the Young Go Prodigies of Asia Have a Future?

#110

Post by conanbatt »

Noos wrote: post #109
conanbatt wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might happen, but I hope it doesn't. I cannot speak for Chess's mindset but as a Devoted Go Player, we are collectively trying to solve it, and so we have for centuries. We play Go to explore its universe and reach utmost understanding of the game(and a glimpse of ourselves). If we ever find(which eventually we shuold) the exact single pattern that is best for both players, and we solve the game, it becomes someth…

Why would you do so? The computer will advance much, much quicker than you will because it doesn't have to memorize or be inefficiently trained to be good at Go. It will be able to solve things better than you will, and one day the game will be solved and truly pointless.

We might get much quicker to the solution of Go Working with the computers as Go players and scientists, than only scientists.
Post reply on HN