Chinese board game Go has become a popular testing ground for AI because of its simple rules — two players and two colors of stones — and the profound complexity that the simple rules lead to. For…
Humans can’t beat AI at Go, aside from these exploits that we needed AI to tell us about first.
Lee Sedol managed to win one game against AlphaGo in 2016 (and AlphaGo Zero was beating AlphaGo 100-0 a year later). That was basically the last time humans got on the scoreboard.
did you know that humanity has been staring at numbers and doing math for millennia, and yet we still pay mathematicians? fucking outrageous, right? and yet these wry fuckers still end up finding whole new things! things in areas we’ve known about for centuries! the nerve of them! didn’t they know we have computers to look into this now?!
I play Go, and have since I learnt about the game when it was discussed in my Computer Science degree course (then computers were considered 50+ years away from beating humans).
Overall, AlphaGo has been a good thing for human players, with it validating a lot of what we thought was right, but also that some tactics we’d thought not worth playing do work out. Having a superhuman, free advisor has made improving much easier.
The negatives include that there’s less individual style amongst those that play like AIs, and also that it’s easier to cheat at the game.
As in chess, humans have been outclassed by computers in Go for years now, but that doesn’t stop us playing and enjoying it.
Humans can’t beat AI at Go, aside from these exploits
kek, reminds me of when I was a wee one and I’d 0 to death chain grab someone in smash bros. The lads would cry and gnash their teeth about how I was only winning b.c. of exploits. My response? Just don’t get grabbed. I’d advise “superhuman” Go systems to do the same. Don’t want to get cheesed out of a W? Then don’t use a strat that’s easily countered by monkey brains. And as far as designing an adversarial system to find these ‘exploits’, who the hell cares? There’s no magic barrier between internalized and externalized cognition.
There’s no magic barrier between internalized and externalized cognition.
I think it’s increasingly clear that cognition is networking, and no matter how you are constructed, it’s both internal and external, and that in a sense, the objects aren’t the important thing (the relationships are).
Like, maybe there aren’t shortcuts. If you want perfect GO play you may very well have to pay the full inductive price. And even then, congrats, but GO still exists.
It’s interesting to see how Chess has continued to be relevant, hell, possibly even more popular than its ever been, due to increased accessibility, alternative formats, and embracing the performance aspects of the game.
Except beating humans, apparently.
Yeah, aside from everything else it’s very satisfying to see the humans win this one.
It had a winning record for like 8 years in a row before humans found a strategy that beats it, that seems pretty good.
Humans can’t beat AI at Go, aside from these exploits that we needed AI to tell us about first.
Lee Sedol managed to win one game against AlphaGo in 2016 (and AlphaGo Zero was beating AlphaGo 100-0 a year later). That was basically the last time humans got on the scoreboard.
lol
did you know that humanity has been staring at numbers and doing math for millennia, and yet we still pay mathematicians? fucking outrageous, right? and yet these wry fuckers still end up finding whole new things! things in areas we’ve known about for centuries! the nerve of them! didn’t they know we have computers to look into this now?!
You’re arguing against a point I’m not making.
I play Go, and have since I learnt about the game when it was discussed in my Computer Science degree course (then computers were considered 50+ years away from beating humans).
Overall, AlphaGo has been a good thing for human players, with it validating a lot of what we thought was right, but also that some tactics we’d thought not worth playing do work out. Having a superhuman, free advisor has made improving much easier.
The negatives include that there’s less individual style amongst those that play like AIs, and also that it’s easier to cheat at the game.
As in chess, humans have been outclassed by computers in Go for years now, but that doesn’t stop us playing and enjoying it.
this is not debate club, and that sound you didn’t hear on account of your noise-cancelling headphones was you missing your stop
kek, reminds me of when I was a wee one and I’d 0 to death chain grab someone in smash bros. The lads would cry and gnash their teeth about how I was only winning b.c. of exploits. My response? Just don’t get grabbed. I’d advise “superhuman” Go systems to do the same. Don’t want to get cheesed out of a W? Then don’t use a strat that’s easily countered by monkey brains. And as far as designing an adversarial system to find these ‘exploits’, who the hell cares? There’s no magic barrier between internalized and externalized cognition.
Just get good bruv.
I appreciate this perspective, especially
I think it’s increasingly clear that cognition is networking, and no matter how you are constructed, it’s both internal and external, and that in a sense, the objects aren’t the important thing (the relationships are).
Like, maybe there aren’t shortcuts. If you want perfect GO play you may very well have to pay the full inductive price. And even then, congrats, but GO still exists.
It’s interesting to see how Chess has continued to be relevant, hell, possibly even more popular than its ever been, due to increased accessibility, alternative formats, and embracing the performance aspects of the game.