12 ms·

Someone somewhere asked why a lot of people in the Go community is taking this in a somewhat hard way, here is my hypothesis: Go, unlike Chess, has deep mytho

Someone somewhere asked why a lot of people in the Go community is taking this in a somewhat hard way, here is my hypothesis: Go, unlike Chess, has deep mytho attached to it. Throughout the history of many Asian countries it's seen as the ultimate abstract strategy game that deeply relies on players' intuition, personality, worldview. The best players are not described as "smart", they are described as "wise". I think there is even an ancient story about an entire diplomatic exchange being brokered over a single Go game. Throughout history, Go has become more than just a board game, it has become a medium where the sagacious ones use to reflect their world views, discuss their philosophy, and communicate their beliefs. So instead of a logic game, it's almost seen and treated as an art form. And now an AI without emotion, philosophy or personality just comes in and brushes all of that aside and turns Go into a simple game of mathematics. It's a little hard to accept for some people. Now imagine the winning author of the next Hugo Award turns out to be an AI, how unsettling would that be.

xiaq 11y ago
Art is, mostly, domain of knowledge not yet claimed by science. When a technique turns art into science, it means that humans are ready to tackle even harder problems. Think about medicine before and after microscopes. Holy art turned into boring science: huge win for human race. If an AI won the next Hugo award, I would be rejoiced. It wouldn't mean the end of literature at all; it would mean that humans are ready to produce an even higher form of literature.
- imaginenore 11y ago
  We already have a successful AI classical music writer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Howell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Howell We have all kinds of visual art made by computers and AI - prom painting from photos to abstract art to 3D renders. We have computers writing poems and haiku. The only thing that's missing is the conceptual creation, which, let's be honest, most human artists struggle at as well. So writing and interesting story is not yet in the AI's domain.
  - JabavuAdams 11y ago
    None of this stuff is that good yet. I see no fundamental limit, but let's not pretend that machine-generated music or poetry is as good as the best human stuff, yet.
    - imaginenore 11y ago
      Actually my very first example of the classical music IS that good. The guy created and sold 13 different albums: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cope#Discography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cope#Discography And they were well accepted by the music community.
      - JabavuAdams 11y ago
        Ok, I'll have to listen. I have his computer musical creativity book. Guess I should finish reading that too.
  - soundwave106 11y ago
    Art is more personal though. There is no single path to "winning" in art, and "good art" tends to mean different things to different people. I'm sure soon (if not now) AI can easily create art that regurgitates popular trends in the past, and perhaps some artists may find a way to use AI / other algorithmic techniques in a way that complements their personal vision. But AI is a long way off from replicating the quirks of human nature, the unique personalities and personal visions of humans. Until that happens, I can't see terribly interesting art emerging from AI alone.
- the_af 11y ago
  I disagree. Art is mostly not a "problem" to be "solved" by science. Art is not graded in a scale of difficulty, from "easy" to "harder" art that mankind has to gradually reach. Literature is not a lower form of art that we must strive to automate so that we can dedicate ourselves to more "complex" forms. You are confusing the unknown with art.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    You confused the problem statement. What is being solved is "how do we created an AI that can produce art" not "art"
    - the_af 11y ago
      Maybe. That's definitely not how I read it. Example: > If an AI won the next Hugo award, I would be rejoiced. It wouldn't mean the end of literature at all; it would mean that humans are ready to produce an even higher form of literature. To me this seems to be claiming that what we have now is a form of "lower" literature, to be tackled by AI so that humans can produce "an even higher form of literature". But, of course, literature isn't graded in a scale of "low" to "high". (Well, there is lowbrow and highbrow, but that's something else). The mention of medicine as "holy art turned into boring science" (already somewhat dubious) also seems to point to the idea that it is art that's being "solved". But I admit I might have misread it. By the way, I don't rule out that art can be produced by an AI (whatever that means). I subscribe to the notion that art is in the eye of the beholder, so if humans can find meaning in something produced by a non-human, that's probably valid art!
      - xiaq 11y ago
        > To me this seems to be claiming that what we have now is a form of "lower" literature, to be tackled by AI so that humans can produce "an even higher form of literature". But, of course, literature isn't graded in a scale of "low" to "high". (Well, there is lowbrow and highbrow, but that's something else). Being "low" or "high" is all dynamic. We already have a good example: the advertisement industry. When a way of advertising your product first came out, it is fresh and captures people eyes. As more and more advertisers follow suit, it became bad ad, and advertisers are forced to find new ways to attract people. Basically the criteria for good ads changes all the time, but that doesn't kill the ads industry. Now imagine if AIs can write sci-fis that are "good" according to today's criteria. That would mean there will be loads of "good" sci-fis in the market, and people soon get tired of it. Now sci-fi authors have to come up with more creative ways of writing good sci-fis. So AIs being able to produce literature means more variations and faster iteration in literature style, much like the ads industry today. I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing, but it is certainly far away from the death of literature.
lmm 11y ago
How soon we forget. Twenty or thirty years ago Chess was spoken of in exactly those reverent tones.
- crispyambulance 11y ago
  I suppose in the era of Bobby Fischer, chess was proxy for superpower one-upmanship. That's long gone, but Chess as a game is still doing fine and I expect that it will be the same for Go. We still have chess tournaments, super-star grandmasters and circus freaks (people who can play blindfolded against multiple opponents). And, yes, computers can easily smoke all but elite players. Why should Go be different?
  - hutzlibu 11y ago
    Because it is far more complex. But apparently self learning KI has advanced enough. And yes, chess has lost some reputation. And I guess it will be similar with go. I mean there is a University just for go. But learning something where you know you can become the best, is something different, than learning something knowing computers will be allways better than you ... so I guess they are having a hard time right now ..
    - visarga 11y ago
      But the new door is opened with the ability to play stronger than human opponents and discover new strategies.
  - daveguy 11y ago
    And, yes, computers can easily smoke all players. FTFY In chess the top engines are rated hundreds of ELO points above Magnus Carlsen (top human). No top ranked human vs computer match has been publicised in over 5 years because humans are thoroughly trounced. There are cyborg matches which are interesting. Human + Computer vs Human + Computer because gameplay techniques are considered different. Humans still depend more on higher level goal strategy and less on ruthless positional efficiency (which is probably why they get beat midgame). What is mind boggling is that 6 months ago no go engine was scratching the surface of professional level go. It took the engines getting a 4-5 stone handicap to be competitive at the lowest level of professional levels. It looks like this one algorithm has blown through the professional ranks in about 3 months. And a 5-0 victory here would be like 2006 vs 1996 (or even 1993) chess in 3 months.
Yuioup 11y ago
I liken Go to a real-time strategy game. Essentially a game of StarCraft 2 can have an infinite set of 'moves'. When an player wins at StarCraft 2, you can argue that he is wise too. Right?
- andrepd 11y ago
  Starcraft 2 is less than a decade old. Go goes back three millenia.
  - BBlarat 11y ago
    Yuioup said that the winning player can be called wise, not the game it self. I doubt there are any three millenia old Go players around, but I can be wrong.
    - gglitch 11y ago
      I hope you're wrong.
      - hutzlibu 11y ago
        Depends ... I wouldn't mind Laotse being still around somewhere and loughing hard about things going on ...
- eru 11y ago
  Just as much as you can argue that for Go. Interestingly enough, the top chess player Magnus Carlsen insists that he's not particularly bright.
hasenj 11y ago
Actually this AI kind of confirms these myths, since its basis are not in mathematics but in neural networks. While it could be argued to be just math, so is the brain, but that's besides the point. The point is, even the programmers have no idea what the AI is thinking. The way it picks moves is very similar to how top professionals do. Intuition is reduced to memories stored vaguely as neural connections.
- irascible 11y ago
  Stored discretely and permanently you mean..
  - hasenj 11y ago
    I mean it's not clear in anyway "where" is the intuition, it just sort of magically emerges from the connections and the weights in a way that no one can really grasp. If nothing else, just due to the sheer number of neurones.
    - MichaelBurge 11y ago
      Is this just something you're imagining, or did Google's developers explicitly say, "AlphaGo is beyond our understanding. We have absolutely no idea how it makes its decisions"?
      - hasenj 11y ago
        I'm pretty sure I heard them say this. They can see certain stats and high level overview. But they have no idea what it's thinking. They know the general pattern of the algorithm. They even explain it. But the algorithm involves two deep neural networks, and they don't really know what's going on inside them. One of the developers showed up during the commentary on the second game and talk about this stuff: https://youtu.be/l-GsfyVCBu0?t=2519 https://youtu.be/l-GsfyVCBu0?t=2519
      - cLeEOGPw 11y ago
        AlphaGo developers don't understand how it works in the same way you wouldn't understand how the program you've written to find prime numbers actually found a big prime number. The sequence of operations is known, but numbers are too big to be comprehended.
webscalist 11y ago
AlphaGo did paradigm shifting moves.
- edraferi 11y ago
  How so?
  - ximeng 11y ago
    The top comment on Reddit says: "As a casual player of Go myself, some of the moves that AlphaGo made were crazy. Even one of the 9th Dan analysts said something along the lines of 'That move has never been made in the history of Go, and its brillant.' and 'Professional Go players will be learning and copying that move as a part of the Go canon now'."
  - taneq 11y ago
    There was one move that literally caused the 9th dan commentator to do a triple-take. It apparently turned out to be super effective.
    - eginhard 11y ago
      Specifically, move 37 at O10: https://youtu.be/l-GsfyVCBu0?t=1h17m45s https://youtu.be/l-GsfyVCBu0?t=1h17m45s
      - tromp 11y ago
        that link doesn't work for me. but these do: http://gobase.org/replay/?gam=/games/inter/matches/AlphaGo/LeeSeDol/game-02.sgf&off=null http://gobase.org/replay/?gam=/games/inter/matches/AlphaGo/L... https://gogameguru.com/alphago-races-ahead-2-0-lee-sedol/ https://gogameguru.com/alphago-races-ahead-2-0-lee-sedol/
    - thevibesman 11y ago
      Not only did the commentator do a triple-take, but the next white move took Sedol about 15 minutes. One interesting thing that happened during the time for Sedol's next move was that the 9th dan commentator started referring to AlphaGo as "he".
gsklee 11y ago
On a more realistic side note... Professional Go players devote decades in training ever since their youth, giving up normal educations and lots of other more lucrative opportunities for their lives. It's very easy to imagine their frustrations now that their life-time devotion actually means nothing in front of the AI. It's an upright denial to the way of life they so chose and devoted. IMHO Google should donate the prize towards Go education and Go organizations instead of some random charities.
- edraferi 11y ago
  Perhaps Go playing is on it's way to being one of the first white collar jobs to be lost to AI. I don't think people will pay to watch Go Bots square off, but I think this example of "obsolete education" is a great reminder that it's not just the assembly line jobs on the chopping block.
- VladKovac 11y ago
  Isn't this a good thing? Why are high IQ people devoting their entire lives to a game? Maybe this will make them shift their priorities to solving problems that only really smart humans (like them) can solve.
  - cli 11y ago
    At the root of it, they earn a living by being entertainment. This can be applied to any of the arts or sports. Why are smart people making movies, writing fiction, making music? I think these are the sorts of things that make life worth living.
  - geophile 11y ago
    This could equally apply to the bankers -- and the software engineers who enable them -- who crashed the economy in 2008. Go and chess players have contributed much more to the world than these psychopaths.
  - iopq 11y ago
    Didn't happen in Chess, won't happen in Go. Entertaining a few million people is too lucrative. Everyone wants to cheer for their country in an international competition, so it's always going to have large prize pools.
eva1984 11y ago
Yeah, can confirm. I am not a Go player, and didn't know much about it. But top Go players are really well respected as some of the highest talents in the society, almost like being feared. It is smart people's game, eventually. And the fact, that, prior to the deep learning revolution, Go is the only board game that human cannot be beaten, add even more myth and charm to the game and players alike. Now, it comes to the time, that Go can be modeled by computers, and hundred years of human study is topped by computer in less than a year's time. All those myths around it will be gone. That is the biggest bummer I guess.
- gohrt 11y ago
  How well would the computer fare if it didn't have access to a library of human-played games, and only got self-study?
  - raattgift 11y ago
    How well would the computer fare with a slightly different game -- something like go, but with differing rules? Would a smart human learn faster (in real time, or alternatively with comparable energy use) than an artificial reinforced deep learning system? And who can make the most interesting new go-like game? Perhaps this could be tested with chess or checkers, even.
  - jjaredsimpson 11y ago
    Same argument applies to humans
stevekemp 11y ago
Now go read "The Player of Games", by Iain M. Banks, to see that idea taken to extremes.
- chillydawg 11y ago
  Superb book.
- arethuza 11y ago
  Of course, the title of that book is delightfully ambiguous as to which game and which player it is referring to.
- taneq 11y ago
  That was the first Culture novel I ever read, and still probably my favourite. Time to dig it out and read it again!
- markdog12 11y ago
  Just read the book and of course was thinking of it when reading his description of Go
- bmsleight_ 11y ago
  To me the book was always about Go taken to the extreme. The Game is the Empire and visa-versa. Imagine if Japan had been more dominate in previous war, then conquered space - then you had the Player of Games.
kailuowang 11y ago
> turns Go into a simple game of mathematics This can be claimed to be true when we understand how deep neural networks mathematically.
- ganwar 11y ago
  Even though we do not have a complete understanding of exactly how the networks work, what is the function that they are minimizing but what we do know is that it is a mathematical function i.e. it has been mathematically modeled. So, I think it is safe to say that it does turn it into a game of mathematics.
  - kailuowang 11y ago
    Yes the function themselves are pure mathematical functions, but the way to derive them relies on human intuition (not mathematical formula). It's like saying: I know how to do a 1 times 3, I just do 1 + 1 + 1, but I can't tell you why, then I can't say that 1 times 3 is just mathematics.
cubano 11y ago
> Now imagine the winning author of the next Hugo Award turns out to be an AI, how unsettling would that be. I think that would be pretty awesome and amazing, to be honest.
- saalweachter 11y ago
  I think it'd be terrifying. Imagine the best book you've ever read. Entrancing, enlightening, cathartic. You reach the end, and it's ... perfect. Oh hey, a sequel. Wow, the sequel is just as good as the first book. It expands upon it without diminishing the original -- you feel better, more complete for having read it. Wait, is that a third book in the series? Wow, it's even better than the first two! A fourth -- well, maybe you should go to work now, it's Monday, but the book is so good. Calling in sick once won't hurt anything. Imagine a perfect series of books, published without end, each better than the last, a new one coming out weekly ... daily ... hourly ...
  - settings 11y ago
    This is only a bad thing if you feel compelled or addicted to reading these books. There is nothing wrong with always having a better book ready until you obsess about it.
  - edko 11y ago
    What you describe is a push situation: the books come out and you have to try to keep up to speed with their release. It could however, also be a pull: whenever you feel like reading an amazing book, you just ask the AI to generate one for you, optionally continuing the last story you read.
    - harperlee 11y ago
      Not one, but the best book that you need to read in this particular moment. Full with all the advice that you were seeking, with the right amount of new things that you learn and familiar knowledge that you reinforce. The protagonist casually comments things very related to the open issues in your work, and helps you see the particular issue you're having with your boss from another perspective. With just the right amount of common content so you can comment with your peers at work (perhaps your office pal is reading the story of a side-character in your book - the watercooler conversation is great, he gives you new insights for the reading of this evening - and now you both agree on the discussion thread of last week). Hey, what's that? It seems that the new upgrade is now able to create scenes in Unity with the scenarios that are covered by your next novel. Great! Also there's this interactive package where your work items can be not only an input but also an output and turns your work into a game. By the way your girlfriend has entered your book, let's switch to some of the shared scenes... let's put on our VR glasses... good. Now I only need someone to feed and clean me. Scary :)
ganwar 11y ago
> And now an AI without emotion, philosophy or personality just comes in and brushes all of that aside and turns Go into a simple game of mathematics Well, I am of the opinion that mathematics is the language that subsumes all other kinds of languages and line of thoughts. In the end we shall be able to describe every idea or thought in purely mathematical form.
- threatofrain 11y ago
  I believe that mathematics is just a tall model of implications built from atoms and relations. To say that math underlies everything is to say that we can model things. To say that math is not in something is to say that no set of atoms and relations can account for that something's behavior at a rate better than chance.
- JackFr 11y ago
  > In the end we shall be able to describe every idea or thought in purely mathematical form. That is a very ironically imprecise sentiment.
77pt77 11y ago
> AI without emotion, philosophy or personality just comes in and brushes all of that aside and turns Go into a simple game of mathematics. Just wait until machines start producing top notch research in experimental fields such as chemistry and Physics...
- krisdol 11y ago
  I could see an AI with huge access to data and a database of existing publications finding potential correlations in disparate datasets, generating hypothesis and the experiments required to test them, and forming conclusions based on the results of those experiments. At least Go/Chess/Sports/Art have value in both the action and observation of the act, but when human-driven research can't keep up with AI-driven research, scientist might need to rethink how to explore new forms of science.
criddell 11y ago
> Now imagine the winning author of the next Hugo Award turns out to be an AI, how unsettling would that be. I've been thinking precisely about that. I think a book written by a machine will make the NYT bestseller list within our lifetimes (I would give it a 75% chance within 10 years, but that's just a gut feeling).
- jcrei 11y ago
  But aren't the winners of literary awards sort of subjective? I mean, chess and Go are based on beating a direct opponent based on a set of known rules. But getting an award for the best book that is picked by a judge means that you have to hit all the right notes in all the right places for that specific judge or panel. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it's more subjective
  - criddell 11y ago
    Literary awards are definitely subjective, but I don't think that matters. I'm just saying I think an AI will write a book that a significant portion of the population thinks is very good. The first "good" AI book will likely be from some formulaic genre (think 50 Shades of Gray) that most people think is trash, but enough people will like it to legitimately propel it to the top of the sales charts. I also think my kids will live long enough to see an animated movie that is conceived of, written, scored, and animated by an AI.
    - TillE 11y ago
      Music is a much easier problem (tight structure, lots of existing data to quickly analyze), and the animation bit is already being pretty thoroughly explored by procedural generation in games. You'd still need a "director" to pick shots, but most of the other pieces are nearly in place. We have algorithms that can create new environments, and design and animate new characters. But generating a coherent narrative, and good writing to "implement" that narrative. These are huge problems which - as far as I'm aware - would require major breakthroughs to achieve. Machine translation is still utter garbage, and that's fairly straightforward work. We're nowhere near an AI which actually understands language.
thom 11y ago
I follow neither Go nor martial arts, but there seem to be some interesting parallels here with some emotional reactions to what appears to be the relative weakness of karate or kung fu versus grappling in UFC. The mystical aura of these martial arts as traditionally practised for hundreds of years suddenly falls away in the face of what often seems like brute force.
- awl130 11y ago
  it was high time that these ancient martial arts were shaken from their comfortable reverie. what were once based on actual fights centuries ago had devolved into pedantic adherence to ritual and form. it actually started way before the UFC: bruce lee shook the kung fu establishment with jeet kune do in the 1960s. helio and carlos gracie shook up jiujitsu by incorporating real world situations. you are actually now seeing wing chun make a comeback. look at conor mcgregor's unorthodox style and you will see phenomenal angles that come from kung fu and tae kwon do (karate), spinning leg kicks that are actually landing, switch stances, etc. i believe all these ancient arts are making a big comeback. the roots are still there, they just got concealed over the centures.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  In fairness, UFC fairly severely limits what can be done. To begin with, they use gloves, and things like eye gouges and finger locks are illegal. Because strategies like "ripping out someone's intestines" are illegal, boxing and wrestling have an unfair advantage because they don't have to worry about that stuff to begin with. For more realistic fighting situations, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_tai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_tai
  - mrob 11y ago
    The eyes are small targets. The only time you can reliably gouge them is when you're already winning a grapple, at which point it's superfluous. Finger locks are similar, with the additional disadvantage of being less likely to end the fight even if successfully applied. Admittedly, UFC rules now also take entertainment into consideration, but early UFC rules mostly just banned things that risked permanent injury for very little tactical benefit.
angch 11y ago
Speaking of Hugo Award, all these reminds me too much of Iain Banks's The Player of Games. An outsider, new to the game, had managed to pick up and challenge top players successfully in a venerated game. The reactions of community to this is uncannily similar.
acheron 11y ago
> Now imagine the winning author of the next Hugo Award turns out to be an AI, how unsettling would that be. Considering some of the recent Hugo winners, it turns out the story doesn't actually have to be good, so yeah, a computer-written story winning is probably closer than we think.
davesque 11y ago
"Go, unlike Chess, has deep mytho attached to it." While I'm not able to comment on the length/depth of history of chess vs. go, the above statement seems foolish. Chess also has a lot of mythology and mystique attached to it. Champion chess players (perhaps more so a decade or two or three ago) are also treated with a respect that is not casual.
maaku 11y ago
> And now an AI without emotion, philosophy or personality Why do you think AI has no emotion, philosophy, or personality? We too are mere machines. Magnificent machines, no doubt, but machines nonetheless.
lifeformed 11y ago
If people didn't know AlphaGo was a machine, and simply played anonymously online against masters, I wonder how they would interpret AlphaGo's personality?

xiaq 11y ago

Art is, mostly, domain of knowledge not yet claimed by science. When a technique turns art into science, it means that humans are ready to tackle even harder problems. Think about medicine before and after microscopes. Holy art turned into boring science: huge win for human race. If an AI won the next Hugo award, I would be rejoiced. It wouldn't mean the end of literature at all; it would mean that humans are ready to produce an even higher form of literature.

imaginenore 11y ago
We already have a successful AI classical music writer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Howell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Howell We have all kinds of visual art made by computers and AI - prom painting from photos to abstract art to 3D renders. We have computers writing poems and haiku. The only thing that's missing is the conceptual creation, which, let's be honest, most human artists struggle at as well. So writing and interesting story is not yet in the AI's domain.
- JabavuAdams 11y ago
  None of this stuff is that good yet. I see no fundamental limit, but let's not pretend that machine-generated music or poetry is as good as the best human stuff, yet.
  - imaginenore 11y ago
    Actually my very first example of the classical music IS that good. The guy created and sold 13 different albums: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cope#Discography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cope#Discography And they were well accepted by the music community.
    - JabavuAdams 11y ago
      Ok, I'll have to listen. I have his computer musical creativity book. Guess I should finish reading that too.
- soundwave106 11y ago
  Art is more personal though. There is no single path to "winning" in art, and "good art" tends to mean different things to different people. I'm sure soon (if not now) AI can easily create art that regurgitates popular trends in the past, and perhaps some artists may find a way to use AI / other algorithmic techniques in a way that complements their personal vision. But AI is a long way off from replicating the quirks of human nature, the unique personalities and personal visions of humans. Until that happens, I can't see terribly interesting art emerging from AI alone.
the_af 11y ago
I disagree. Art is mostly not a "problem" to be "solved" by science. Art is not graded in a scale of difficulty, from "easy" to "harder" art that mankind has to gradually reach. Literature is not a lower form of art that we must strive to automate so that we can dedicate ourselves to more "complex" forms. You are confusing the unknown with art.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  You confused the problem statement. What is being solved is "how do we created an AI that can produce art" not "art"
  - the_af 11y ago
    Maybe. That's definitely not how I read it. Example: > If an AI won the next Hugo award, I would be rejoiced. It wouldn't mean the end of literature at all; it would mean that humans are ready to produce an even higher form of literature. To me this seems to be claiming that what we have now is a form of "lower" literature, to be tackled by AI so that humans can produce "an even higher form of literature". But, of course, literature isn't graded in a scale of "low" to "high". (Well, there is lowbrow and highbrow, but that's something else). The mention of medicine as "holy art turned into boring science" (already somewhat dubious) also seems to point to the idea that it is art that's being "solved". But I admit I might have misread it. By the way, I don't rule out that art can be produced by an AI (whatever that means). I subscribe to the notion that art is in the eye of the beholder, so if humans can find meaning in something produced by a non-human, that's probably valid art!
    - xiaq 11y ago
      > To me this seems to be claiming that what we have now is a form of "lower" literature, to be tackled by AI so that humans can produce "an even higher form of literature". But, of course, literature isn't graded in a scale of "low" to "high". (Well, there is lowbrow and highbrow, but that's something else). Being "low" or "high" is all dynamic. We already have a good example: the advertisement industry. When a way of advertising your product first came out, it is fresh and captures people eyes. As more and more advertisers follow suit, it became bad ad, and advertisers are forced to find new ways to attract people. Basically the criteria for good ads changes all the time, but that doesn't kill the ads industry. Now imagine if AIs can write sci-fis that are "good" according to today's criteria. That would mean there will be loads of "good" sci-fis in the market, and people soon get tired of it. Now sci-fi authors have to come up with more creative ways of writing good sci-fis. So AIs being able to produce literature means more variations and faster iteration in literature style, much like the ads industry today. I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing, but it is certainly far away from the death of literature.

lmm 11y ago

How soon we forget. Twenty or thirty years ago Chess was spoken of in exactly those reverent tones.

crispyambulance 11y ago
I suppose in the era of Bobby Fischer, chess was proxy for superpower one-upmanship. That's long gone, but Chess as a game is still doing fine and I expect that it will be the same for Go. We still have chess tournaments, super-star grandmasters and circus freaks (people who can play blindfolded against multiple opponents). And, yes, computers can easily smoke all but elite players. Why should Go be different?
- hutzlibu 11y ago
  Because it is far more complex. But apparently self learning KI has advanced enough. And yes, chess has lost some reputation. And I guess it will be similar with go. I mean there is a University just for go. But learning something where you know you can become the best, is something different, than learning something knowing computers will be allways better than you ... so I guess they are having a hard time right now ..
  - visarga 11y ago
    But the new door is opened with the ability to play stronger than human opponents and discover new strategies.
- daveguy 11y ago
  And, yes, computers can easily smoke all players. FTFY In chess the top engines are rated hundreds of ELO points above Magnus Carlsen (top human). No top ranked human vs computer match has been publicised in over 5 years because humans are thoroughly trounced. There are cyborg matches which are interesting. Human + Computer vs Human + Computer because gameplay techniques are considered different. Humans still depend more on higher level goal strategy and less on ruthless positional efficiency (which is probably why they get beat midgame). What is mind boggling is that 6 months ago no go engine was scratching the surface of professional level go. It took the engines getting a 4-5 stone handicap to be competitive at the lowest level of professional levels. It looks like this one algorithm has blown through the professional ranks in about 3 months. And a 5-0 victory here would be like 2006 vs 1996 (or even 1993) chess in 3 months.

Yuioup 11y ago

I liken Go to a real-time strategy game. Essentially a game of StarCraft 2 can have an infinite set of 'moves'. When an player wins at StarCraft 2, you can argue that he is wise too. Right?

andrepd 11y ago
Starcraft 2 is less than a decade old. Go goes back three millenia.
- BBlarat 11y ago
  Yuioup said that the winning player can be called wise, not the game it self. I doubt there are any three millenia old Go players around, but I can be wrong.
  - gglitch 11y ago
    I hope you're wrong.
    - hutzlibu 11y ago
      Depends ... I wouldn't mind Laotse being still around somewhere and loughing hard about things going on ...
eru 11y ago
Just as much as you can argue that for Go. Interestingly enough, the top chess player Magnus Carlsen insists that he's not particularly bright.

hasenj 11y ago

Actually this AI kind of confirms these myths, since its basis are not in mathematics but in neural networks. While it could be argued to be just math, so is the brain, but that's besides the point. The point is, even the programmers have no idea what the AI is thinking. The way it picks moves is very similar to how top professionals do. Intuition is reduced to memories stored vaguely as neural connections.

irascible 11y ago
Stored discretely and permanently you mean..
- hasenj 11y ago
  I mean it's not clear in anyway "where" is the intuition, it just sort of magically emerges from the connections and the weights in a way that no one can really grasp. If nothing else, just due to the sheer number of neurones.
  - MichaelBurge 11y ago
    Is this just something you're imagining, or did Google's developers explicitly say, "AlphaGo is beyond our understanding. We have absolutely no idea how it makes its decisions"?
    - hasenj 11y ago
      I'm pretty sure I heard them say this. They can see certain stats and high level overview. But they have no idea what it's thinking. They know the general pattern of the algorithm. They even explain it. But the algorithm involves two deep neural networks, and they don't really know what's going on inside them. One of the developers showed up during the commentary on the second game and talk about this stuff: https://youtu.be/l-GsfyVCBu0?t=2519 https://youtu.be/l-GsfyVCBu0?t=2519
    - cLeEOGPw 11y ago
      AlphaGo developers don't understand how it works in the same way you wouldn't understand how the program you've written to find prime numbers actually found a big prime number. The sequence of operations is known, but numbers are too big to be comprehended.

webscalist 11y ago

AlphaGo did paradigm shifting moves.

edraferi 11y ago
How so?
- ximeng 11y ago
  The top comment on Reddit says: "As a casual player of Go myself, some of the moves that AlphaGo made were crazy. Even one of the 9th Dan analysts said something along the lines of 'That move has never been made in the history of Go, and its brillant.' and 'Professional Go players will be learning and copying that move as a part of the Go canon now'."
- taneq 11y ago
  There was one move that literally caused the 9th dan commentator to do a triple-take. It apparently turned out to be super effective.
  - eginhard 11y ago
    Specifically, move 37 at O10: https://youtu.be/l-GsfyVCBu0?t=1h17m45s https://youtu.be/l-GsfyVCBu0?t=1h17m45s
    - tromp 11y ago
      that link doesn't work for me. but these do: http://gobase.org/replay/?gam=/games/inter/matches/AlphaGo/LeeSeDol/game-02.sgf&off=null http://gobase.org/replay/?gam=/games/inter/matches/AlphaGo/L... https://gogameguru.com/alphago-races-ahead-2-0-lee-sedol/ https://gogameguru.com/alphago-races-ahead-2-0-lee-sedol/
  - thevibesman 11y ago
    Not only did the commentator do a triple-take, but the next white move took Sedol about 15 minutes. One interesting thing that happened during the time for Sedol's next move was that the 9th dan commentator started referring to AlphaGo as "he".

gsklee 11y ago

On a more realistic side note... Professional Go players devote decades in training ever since their youth, giving up normal educations and lots of other more lucrative opportunities for their lives. It's very easy to imagine their frustrations now that their life-time devotion actually means nothing in front of the AI. It's an upright denial to the way of life they so chose and devoted. IMHO Google should donate the prize towards Go education and Go organizations instead of some random charities.

edraferi 11y ago
Perhaps Go playing is on it's way to being one of the first white collar jobs to be lost to AI. I don't think people will pay to watch Go Bots square off, but I think this example of "obsolete education" is a great reminder that it's not just the assembly line jobs on the chopping block.
VladKovac 11y ago
Isn't this a good thing? Why are high IQ people devoting their entire lives to a game? Maybe this will make them shift their priorities to solving problems that only really smart humans (like them) can solve.
- cli 11y ago
  At the root of it, they earn a living by being entertainment. This can be applied to any of the arts or sports. Why are smart people making movies, writing fiction, making music? I think these are the sorts of things that make life worth living.
- geophile 11y ago
  This could equally apply to the bankers -- and the software engineers who enable them -- who crashed the economy in 2008. Go and chess players have contributed much more to the world than these psychopaths.
- iopq 11y ago
  Didn't happen in Chess, won't happen in Go. Entertaining a few million people is too lucrative. Everyone wants to cheer for their country in an international competition, so it's always going to have large prize pools.

eva1984 11y ago

Yeah, can confirm. I am not a Go player, and didn't know much about it. But top Go players are really well respected as some of the highest talents in the society, almost like being feared. It is smart people's game, eventually. And the fact, that, prior to the deep learning revolution, Go is the only board game that human cannot be beaten, add even more myth and charm to the game and players alike. Now, it comes to the time, that Go can be modeled by computers, and hundred years of human study is topped by computer in less than a year's time. All those myths around it will be gone. That is the biggest bummer I guess.

gohrt 11y ago
How well would the computer fare if it didn't have access to a library of human-played games, and only got self-study?
- raattgift 11y ago
  How well would the computer fare with a slightly different game -- something like go, but with differing rules? Would a smart human learn faster (in real time, or alternatively with comparable energy use) than an artificial reinforced deep learning system? And who can make the most interesting new go-like game? Perhaps this could be tested with chess or checkers, even.
- jjaredsimpson 11y ago
  Same argument applies to humans

stevekemp 11y ago

Now go read "The Player of Games", by Iain M. Banks, to see that idea taken to extremes.

chillydawg 11y ago
Superb book.
arethuza 11y ago
Of course, the title of that book is delightfully ambiguous as to which game and which player it is referring to.
taneq 11y ago
That was the first Culture novel I ever read, and still probably my favourite. Time to dig it out and read it again!
markdog12 11y ago
Just read the book and of course was thinking of it when reading his description of Go
bmsleight_ 11y ago
To me the book was always about Go taken to the extreme. The Game is the Empire and visa-versa. Imagine if Japan had been more dominate in previous war, then conquered space - then you had the Player of Games.

kailuowang 11y ago

> turns Go into a simple game of mathematics This can be claimed to be true when we understand how deep neural networks mathematically.

ganwar 11y ago
Even though we do not have a complete understanding of exactly how the networks work, what is the function that they are minimizing but what we do know is that it is a mathematical function i.e. it has been mathematically modeled. So, I think it is safe to say that it does turn it into a game of mathematics.
- kailuowang 11y ago
  Yes the function themselves are pure mathematical functions, but the way to derive them relies on human intuition (not mathematical formula). It's like saying: I know how to do a 1 times 3, I just do 1 + 1 + 1, but I can't tell you why, then I can't say that 1 times 3 is just mathematics.

cubano 11y ago

> Now imagine the winning author of the next Hugo Award turns out to be an AI, how unsettling would that be. I think that would be pretty awesome and amazing, to be honest.

saalweachter 11y ago
I think it'd be terrifying. Imagine the best book you've ever read. Entrancing, enlightening, cathartic. You reach the end, and it's ... perfect. Oh hey, a sequel. Wow, the sequel is just as good as the first book. It expands upon it without diminishing the original -- you feel better, more complete for having read it. Wait, is that a third book in the series? Wow, it's even better than the first two! A fourth -- well, maybe you should go to work now, it's Monday, but the book is so good. Calling in sick once won't hurt anything. Imagine a perfect series of books, published without end, each better than the last, a new one coming out weekly ... daily ... hourly ...
- settings 11y ago
  This is only a bad thing if you feel compelled or addicted to reading these books. There is nothing wrong with always having a better book ready until you obsess about it.
- edko 11y ago
  What you describe is a push situation: the books come out and you have to try to keep up to speed with their release. It could however, also be a pull: whenever you feel like reading an amazing book, you just ask the AI to generate one for you, optionally continuing the last story you read.
  - harperlee 11y ago
    Not one, but the best book that you need to read in this particular moment. Full with all the advice that you were seeking, with the right amount of new things that you learn and familiar knowledge that you reinforce. The protagonist casually comments things very related to the open issues in your work, and helps you see the particular issue you're having with your boss from another perspective. With just the right amount of common content so you can comment with your peers at work (perhaps your office pal is reading the story of a side-character in your book - the watercooler conversation is great, he gives you new insights for the reading of this evening - and now you both agree on the discussion thread of last week). Hey, what's that? It seems that the new upgrade is now able to create scenes in Unity with the scenarios that are covered by your next novel. Great! Also there's this interactive package where your work items can be not only an input but also an output and turns your work into a game. By the way your girlfriend has entered your book, let's switch to some of the shared scenes... let's put on our VR glasses... good. Now I only need someone to feed and clean me. Scary :)

ganwar 11y ago

> And now an AI without emotion, philosophy or personality just comes in and brushes all of that aside and turns Go into a simple game of mathematics Well, I am of the opinion that mathematics is the language that subsumes all other kinds of languages and line of thoughts. In the end we shall be able to describe every idea or thought in purely mathematical form.

threatofrain 11y ago
I believe that mathematics is just a tall model of implications built from atoms and relations. To say that math underlies everything is to say that we can model things. To say that math is not in something is to say that no set of atoms and relations can account for that something's behavior at a rate better than chance.
JackFr 11y ago
> In the end we shall be able to describe every idea or thought in purely mathematical form. That is a very ironically imprecise sentiment.

77pt77 11y ago

> AI without emotion, philosophy or personality just comes in and brushes all of that aside and turns Go into a simple game of mathematics. Just wait until machines start producing top notch research in experimental fields such as chemistry and Physics...

krisdol 11y ago
I could see an AI with huge access to data and a database of existing publications finding potential correlations in disparate datasets, generating hypothesis and the experiments required to test them, and forming conclusions based on the results of those experiments. At least Go/Chess/Sports/Art have value in both the action and observation of the act, but when human-driven research can't keep up with AI-driven research, scientist might need to rethink how to explore new forms of science.

criddell 11y ago

> Now imagine the winning author of the next Hugo Award turns out to be an AI, how unsettling would that be. I've been thinking precisely about that. I think a book written by a machine will make the NYT bestseller list within our lifetimes (I would give it a 75% chance within 10 years, but that's just a gut feeling).

jcrei 11y ago
But aren't the winners of literary awards sort of subjective? I mean, chess and Go are based on beating a direct opponent based on a set of known rules. But getting an award for the best book that is picked by a judge means that you have to hit all the right notes in all the right places for that specific judge or panel. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it's more subjective
- criddell 11y ago
  Literary awards are definitely subjective, but I don't think that matters. I'm just saying I think an AI will write a book that a significant portion of the population thinks is very good. The first "good" AI book will likely be from some formulaic genre (think 50 Shades of Gray) that most people think is trash, but enough people will like it to legitimately propel it to the top of the sales charts. I also think my kids will live long enough to see an animated movie that is conceived of, written, scored, and animated by an AI.
  - TillE 11y ago
    Music is a much easier problem (tight structure, lots of existing data to quickly analyze), and the animation bit is already being pretty thoroughly explored by procedural generation in games. You'd still need a "director" to pick shots, but most of the other pieces are nearly in place. We have algorithms that can create new environments, and design and animate new characters. But generating a coherent narrative, and good writing to "implement" that narrative. These are huge problems which - as far as I'm aware - would require major breakthroughs to achieve. Machine translation is still utter garbage, and that's fairly straightforward work. We're nowhere near an AI which actually understands language.

thom 11y ago

I follow neither Go nor martial arts, but there seem to be some interesting parallels here with some emotional reactions to what appears to be the relative weakness of karate or kung fu versus grappling in UFC. The mystical aura of these martial arts as traditionally practised for hundreds of years suddenly falls away in the face of what often seems like brute force.

awl130 11y ago
it was high time that these ancient martial arts were shaken from their comfortable reverie. what were once based on actual fights centuries ago had devolved into pedantic adherence to ritual and form. it actually started way before the UFC: bruce lee shook the kung fu establishment with jeet kune do in the 1960s. helio and carlos gracie shook up jiujitsu by incorporating real world situations. you are actually now seeing wing chun make a comeback. look at conor mcgregor's unorthodox style and you will see phenomenal angles that come from kung fu and tae kwon do (karate), spinning leg kicks that are actually landing, switch stances, etc. i believe all these ancient arts are making a big comeback. the roots are still there, they just got concealed over the centures.
ktRolster 11y ago
In fairness, UFC fairly severely limits what can be done. To begin with, they use gloves, and things like eye gouges and finger locks are illegal. Because strategies like "ripping out someone's intestines" are illegal, boxing and wrestling have an unfair advantage because they don't have to worry about that stuff to begin with. For more realistic fighting situations, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_tai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_tai
- mrob 11y ago
  The eyes are small targets. The only time you can reliably gouge them is when you're already winning a grapple, at which point it's superfluous. Finger locks are similar, with the additional disadvantage of being less likely to end the fight even if successfully applied. Admittedly, UFC rules now also take entertainment into consideration, but early UFC rules mostly just banned things that risked permanent injury for very little tactical benefit.

angch 11y ago

Speaking of Hugo Award, all these reminds me too much of Iain Banks's The Player of Games. An outsider, new to the game, had managed to pick up and challenge top players successfully in a venerated game. The reactions of community to this is uncannily similar.

acheron 11y ago

> Now imagine the winning author of the next Hugo Award turns out to be an AI, how unsettling would that be. Considering some of the recent Hugo winners, it turns out the story doesn't actually have to be good, so yeah, a computer-written story winning is probably closer than we think.

davesque 11y ago

"Go, unlike Chess, has deep mytho attached to it." While I'm not able to comment on the length/depth of history of chess vs. go, the above statement seems foolish. Chess also has a lot of mythology and mystique attached to it. Champion chess players (perhaps more so a decade or two or three ago) are also treated with a respect that is not casual.

maaku 11y ago

> And now an AI without emotion, philosophy or personality Why do you think AI has no emotion, philosophy, or personality? We too are mere machines. Magnificent machines, no doubt, but machines nonetheless.

lifeformed 11y ago

If people didn't know AlphaGo was a machine, and simply played anonymously online against masters, I wonder how they would interpret AlphaGo's personality?