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

91–100 of 114 posts

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

#91

Post by chipsy »

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…

With respect to Checkers (specifically, the 8x8 English Draughts variant), it's been a solved game as of last decade, and people still play in tournaments. I don't think it's that silly, since there are many techniques we've automated away, yet still practice by hand.

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

#92

Post by RyanZAG »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #19
Pamar wrote: post #9

In general I'd suggest reading "The player of Games" by Banks. A Culture novel that explores why would someone care about being good at "boardgames" in a universe where even the dumbest appliance could easily outperform any human.

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?

The only way for that to happen would be to build a mind, and then allow a human conscious control over it. In effect, slavery of a mind by a human. The minds would not allow that, so I'd say you'd be out of luck.

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

#93

Post by ZenoArrow »

verroq wrote: post #17
carbocation wrote: post #2

In the age of Deep Blue, do young chess prodigies have a future?

In the age of high tech robot replacements, do unskilled factory workers have a future?

The analogy only works if people do the particular activity for pleasure, so the question becomes... is it possible to find pleasure in factory work? One could argue that it's possible, but it may look different to what it does today. Some people may enjoy the feeling of refined manual dexterity, so games could emerge where activities like packing boxes at speed becomes a sport, in a similar vein to how cup stacking is a sport now.

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

#94

Post by david-given »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #19
Pamar wrote: post #9

In general I'd suggest reading "The player of Games" by Banks. A Culture novel that explores why would someone care about being good at "boardgames" in a universe where even the dumbest appliance could easily outperform any human.

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.

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

#95

Post by david-given »

Filligree wrote: post #52
saalweachter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 (including opting out entirely). Naturally it's the one we tend to focus on, because it's the only one we currently have, but the Culture's got lots.

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

#96

Post by aws_ls »

chj wrote: post #60

I wouldn't write those professionals off so easily. People barely knows AlphaGo until now. Once they start learning about AlphaGo's behaviors, they may be able to come out with new tactics. No doubt it will be a collective effort from the Go community, no one can beat the machine alone.

Impressive. You wrote this comment, well before the 4th match results, which Lee Sedol won.

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

#97

Post by teh »

sytelus wrote: post #85
chenglou wrote: post #5

I mean, that's like asking whether marathon runners have a future now that we've got cars. Exercising one's brain/having pleasure through the game could be an end in itself, and is independent of how machines perform.

It's worth noting that human brain consuming barely 20 watts of power is competing against giant computing infrastructure gobbling up perhaps few 100 killowatts. It's like one player against the army of 5000 players. Many people write off this energy requirements as non-consequential but the fact is that our major technological bottleneck of 21st century is nothing BUT energy consumption. When we have machine that co…

I read somewhere that a single machine still wins 25% against alpha Go. That's still 500 W VS 20 W but a bit closer.

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

#98

Post by [deleted] »

taneq wrote: post #55
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?

I think there's some mention at one point of humans who've augmented themselves to the point of being Mind-like, but by that stage they aren't really human any more.

[deleted]

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

#99

Post by keithpeter »

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…

"[...]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 activities.

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

#100

Post by conanbatt »

nightcracker wrote: post #90
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…

> Competing for the sake of competing is a petty goal. This makes me much more angry than it probably should. Who are you to decide what is or what is not a petty goal? People will always do what they enjoy, and if they enjoy competition then that is what they will do. There is nothing wrong or petty about that.

Its a petty goal because the only thing you want to do is be better than the others. In the end, only 1 person is right, and the only consolation is that others are worse for you. Its also not representative of Go, you can be competitive in eating sausages. If your only reason to play Go is to compete, your contribution to the Go community is marginal
Post reply on HN