4 ms·

> Can a pro + alphaGo beat AlphaGo consistently? if so, it means humans still have something of an identity. Seems like a hard bet. The human professionals wer

> Can a pro + alphaGo beat AlphaGo consistently? if so, it means humans still have something of an identity. Seems like a hard bet. The human professionals weren't trained to pair with machines to beat other machines. I don't think a human-only skill can even exist due to the nature of the game. Ultimately, each state of the board has a value and this value is estimable using reinforcement learning. Games where a state doesn't have a quantifiable value is where humans could shine. Such games however are not objectively decidable, such as fine arts like painting.

conanbatt 9y ago
>Seems like a hard bet. The human professionals weren't trained to pair with machines to beat other machines. I don't think a human-only skill can even exist due to the nature of the game The point is to find that out ! Also, Go has an intricate relationship between strength and beauty. Strong go tends to be beautiful. Does our capacity to perceive beauty give us a leg up on AlphaGo?
- taneq 9y ago
  Do you not think that you see strong Go moves as beautiful because they're strong, rather than the other way around? Take AlphaGo's unexpected move in the first tournament - no-one thought it was beautiful, just weird, until it played out.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Its an open question. What is beauty after all...
- robrenaud 9y ago
  TBH, it's interesting reading your posts. You talk much more like a poet than a mathematician. This is surprising to me when talking advanced play in a strategic game.
oconnor663 9y ago
There's a strong precedent for this in chess, though. I think human + computer is reliably stronger than just computer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess
- nopinsight 9y ago
  That was true until a few years ago. Now humans cannot add value to computer chess programs and only slow them down. Implications for future economy and job markets are worth pondering. http://www.businessinsider.com/computers-beating-humans-at-advanced-chess-2013-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/computers-beating-humans-at-a...
  - oconnor663 9y ago
    Oh good to know!

conanbatt 9y ago

>Seems like a hard bet. The human professionals weren't trained to pair with machines to beat other machines. I don't think a human-only skill can even exist due to the nature of the game The point is to find that out ! Also, Go has an intricate relationship between strength and beauty. Strong go tends to be beautiful. Does our capacity to perceive beauty give us a leg up on AlphaGo?

taneq 9y ago
Do you not think that you see strong Go moves as beautiful because they're strong, rather than the other way around? Take AlphaGo's unexpected move in the first tournament - no-one thought it was beautiful, just weird, until it played out.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Its an open question. What is beauty after all...
robrenaud 9y ago
TBH, it's interesting reading your posts. You talk much more like a poet than a mathematician. This is surprising to me when talking advanced play in a strategic game.

oconnor663 9y ago

There's a strong precedent for this in chess, though. I think human + computer is reliably stronger than just computer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess

nopinsight 9y ago
That was true until a few years ago. Now humans cannot add value to computer chess programs and only slow them down. Implications for future economy and job markets are worth pondering. http://www.businessinsider.com/computers-beating-humans-at-advanced-chess-2013-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/computers-beating-humans-at-a...
- oconnor663 9y ago
  Oh good to know!