511–520 of 554 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m now curios, can a human design a game that a computer can not beat a human at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arimaa Also, relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1002/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On the other hand, things like self-driving will remain unsolvable because the problem is fundamentally ill-defined; we don't even know what is a good driving. Humans arrive safe and unhurt (as much as possible, especially while human drivers remain on the road) at their destination with minimal violation of the locality's established rules of the road. No? (Though now that I've written what amounts to a utility fu…
> minimal violation of the locality's established rules of the road I wish. I've come to the conclusion that the only true rule of the road is: don't crash. As long as no actual collisions occur, people are totally fine with doing whatever they want and bending the rules for their own convenience. I can no longer predict the behavior of other drivers. Even something as basic as the turn signal is unreliable since peo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On the other hand, things like self-driving will remain unsolvable because the problem is fundamentally ill-defined; we don't even know what is a good driving. Humans arrive safe and unhurt (as much as possible, especially while human drivers remain on the road) at their destination with minimal violation of the locality's established rules of the road. No? (Though now that I've written what amounts to a utility fu…
Drivers (both AI and human) may face problems that are essentially ethical trolley problems. While many of these choices are clearly artificial to the point of ridiculousness, the one that gets me best is "should a self-driving car drive itself off a cliff, killing its only passenger, or hit and kill some >1 number of pedestrians?". While the external observation may be "minimising deaths is preferable, so drive off…
Am I the only one reading this article with the take away that the ai is not his primary reason for retirement? I understand that the title has its own conclusion but it seems overly sensational to me. > He actually quit the KBA in May 2016 and is now suing the association for the return of his membership fee. > "... [I] have something else to do," he said, asserting his only dream for now is to rest and spend time w…
I've heard many times that people come to Hacker News because the comments are better than the articles. I have to say, I'm just continually puzzled by this. In this thread, yours is the only comment where it appears that the commenter read beyond the first few paragraphs. There are numerous comments by people speaking authoritatively on go and AlphaGo, who have clearly not studied either significantly.
If people like the comments better than the articles, it's not so surprising that they like to spend time reading and writing comments instead of reading the articles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, please don’t straw man my point. I’ll assume you know what ai is and that you understand there is a huge difference between that and human intelligence. I am arguing that ai will never be able to DM a D&D game. For that, a computer will need human intelligence.
But AI definition is still target-in-motion, very blurred.
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…
> 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 ... All but the last phrase are still true. Pursuit of Go for beauty is still pursuit of Go for beauty. I will never play any instrument as well as a sequencer. I believe algorithms will make beautiful Jazz improvisations in…
Human existence will still occur, however, our species's defining characteristic will be no more consequential than a meadowlark's greeting of the sun every morning. Beautiful things will occur, but they will be ghostly imitations of the creations of some other being. Humans will create nothing, except, possibly, more humans.
It's not necessarily about your success vs. the machines. It's about every human who will ever live in the future's impossibility of success vs. the machines that is depressing and inevitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The analogy is a very appropriate one. If the OP spent a month learning Go, I am sure that it would make sense to him as well. Work through a series like https://senseis.xmp.net/?LearnToPlayGoSeries while playing Go regularly against a variety of opponents. Before book 3 it should be obvious.
I'll have you know that I'm a 15 Kyu Go player. I'm not an expert by any means, but I'm well past "spend one month" learning the game.
If you like, I could have a look at several your lost games and maybe suggest how to improve. Just a 3k at kgs, but still.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll have you know that I'm a 15 Kyu Go player. I'm not an expert by any means, but I'm well past "spend one month" learning the game.
15kyu? One can easily reach that strength after 1 week. Some ppl become pro age 9
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…
> 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 ... All but the last phrase are still true. Pursuit of Go for beauty is still pursuit of Go for beauty. I will never play any instrument as well as a sequencer. I believe algorithms will make beautiful Jazz improvisations in…
Having dug quite deep into algorithmic music generation of all sorts, as well as having studied Machine Learning as my uni masters, I still believe that you still need an actual artist to make a music generator program.
A machine simply isn't going to figure out "swing" if you don't tell it to. And swing is one of the easiest things. Yes if you look just at note generation, I think algorithms can go a long way. But the subtleties of timing and timbre, it can only imitate in context. Which definitely is good enough for many purposes, and I agree with your prediction that algorithms will be able to generate beautiful music, but I also think there will always remain an "edge" for the artist. If only to discover novel things that are also cool, and then working those out in order to fully express the coolness of that new thing.
I'm also thinking about all the evolutions the many genres of electronic music have gone through the past decades. New and novel "sounds" (or moods, or styles, etc) are still being create/discovered. It is that process, that I don't think we're there yet. Yes the algorithm can probably generate beautiful psytrance, lo-fi hiphop beats and if I'm generous probably eventually also really complex (and jazzy!) stuff like squarepusher.
But what I'm not seeing happening any time soon (barring any breaking general AI type of advances) is if you give the algorithm a TB-303 for the first time and see if it figures out acid house. Yes you can probably teach it the origins of neurofunk DnB (think 1999 Optical & Ed Rush's Wormhole album) and produce super awesome dance music. But I don't see how it could ever develop what happened to DnB beyond that. Wavetable synthesis didn't really exist that way back then, and the bass came from more classic synthesis like the Reese bass. Nowadays, what you can do with a wavetable synth VST like Serum, almost defines what modern DnB sounds like. That particular sound was evolved and shaped through the genre of drum'nbass and became part of it, a new style of synthesis, heavily facilitated through the particular UX controls of these synth plugins, which again caused the author of Serum to amplify by creating his vision of what this UX should be like, is almost like the birth of a new instrument, together with artists having to learn the correct style to "play" this instrument. Which has settled enough now that it is appearing in other new genres. Yet is also still developing. And that is just one genre of music I happen to be somewhat familiar with, I'm sure similar examples can be named in many other genres (for instance I don't know much about the history of dubstep).
Those evolutionary steps, invention of truly novel things, for the foreseeable future, I don't think AI is there yet and artists do still have an edge, even if it's a very thin one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AlphaGo can play go but it cannot appreciate the beauty of the game On the contrary, appreciating the game is the core of what AlphaGo does. In order to search the tree of moves it learns how to play (expand search) and how to evaluate (cut off branches of search). I believe it might appreciate the game on a deeper level than humans, in its own unique way. Of course it can't appreciate the social aspect of the game…
AlphaGo doesn't appreciate the game at all. It is just trying to survive in a hostile environment. You might as well say that your gut bacteria appreciate the food at your favorite restaurant better than you do. Put another way, Chess is literally a matter of life and death for AlphaGo, because chess is all it knows. It has no exterior context for which chess is a metaphor.