4 ms·

> "With the debut of AI in Go games, I've realized that I'm not at the top even if I become the number one through frantic efforts,” There is something sad abo

> "With the debut of AI in Go games, I've realized that I'm not at the top even if I become the number one through frantic efforts,” There is something sad about this comment. It’s as if, even while standing at the peak, he doesn’t grasp what being “at top” actually is. Would Eliud Kipchoge say the same thing about a motorcycle?

knolax 7y ago
Your ability to reason is tied a lot closer to your sense of self and humanity than your ability to run. If Usain Bolt became parapeligic he'd still be human, if Richard Stallman suffered brain death it'd be debatable whether he's still a person or a corpse being kept alive by machines.
parliament32 7y ago
Agreed. I'm all for pitting AIs against each other to see who is better, but putting AIs vs humans is futile in a ridiculous way. Games aren't fun if there isn't a level playing field.
xamuel 7y ago
In a recent paper [1], I argue that intelligence cannot ever be accurately measured by any one particular game or 'environment', but rather, it's better to think of each such environment as being a voter, with just one vote out of many in the universal "intelligence contest". A bot fine-tuned to dominate Go, or Chess, or whatever, is like a candidate fine-tuned to have perfect appeal to one specific voter. It's no surprise if such a candidate gets that one voter's vote, but it should also be no surprise if such an overtrained candidate performs horribly in the election as a whole. [1] https://philpapers.org/archive/ALEIVU.pdf https://philpapers.org/archive/ALEIVU.pdf
ISL 7y ago
If 'at the top' means 'capable of being better at Go than any other entity in the known universe', that statement is correct. It can be viewed as the adaptation of a great competitor -- if a superior adversary emerges, a great competitor finds another way to win. The rest of the article is worth the read for context. This excerpt alone didn't capture the full spirit of the article.
mac01021 7y ago
I always thought Kasparov was granted a tremendous opportunity by the advent of computer chess. He spent his life honing his skills, becoming better and better at chess until he was the very best. And then, when noone could challenge him, technology emerged that would allow him to continue being challenged and improving his chess game. Something no other human could allow him to do. Granted, I'm pretty ignorant about competitive chess and how to get better at it. But if my way of looking at it is valid then it probably applies to Lee Se-dol too.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  > And then, when noone could challenge him, technology emerged that would allow him to continue being challenged and improving his chess game. That technology's name? Vladimir Kramnik. At the time DeepBlue beat Kasparov, Kasparov was honestly still probably better than the computer. He just had a bad match. That was basically demonstrated by his and Kramnik's matches against presumably better computers (than DeepBlue) in the early-to-mid 2000s, which ended in draws. But Kramnik was also a strong competitor to Kasparov in the late 1990s into the 2000s.

knolax 7y ago

Your ability to reason is tied a lot closer to your sense of self and humanity than your ability to run. If Usain Bolt became parapeligic he'd still be human, if Richard Stallman suffered brain death it'd be debatable whether he's still a person or a corpse being kept alive by machines.

parliament32 7y ago

Agreed. I'm all for pitting AIs against each other to see who is better, but putting AIs vs humans is futile in a ridiculous way. Games aren't fun if there isn't a level playing field.

xamuel 7y ago

In a recent paper [1], I argue that intelligence cannot ever be accurately measured by any one particular game or 'environment', but rather, it's better to think of each such environment as being a voter, with just one vote out of many in the universal "intelligence contest". A bot fine-tuned to dominate Go, or Chess, or whatever, is like a candidate fine-tuned to have perfect appeal to one specific voter. It's no surprise if such a candidate gets that one voter's vote, but it should also be no surprise if such an overtrained candidate performs horribly in the election as a whole. [1] https://philpapers.org/archive/ALEIVU.pdf https://philpapers.org/archive/ALEIVU.pdf

ISL 7y ago

If 'at the top' means 'capable of being better at Go than any other entity in the known universe', that statement is correct. It can be viewed as the adaptation of a great competitor -- if a superior adversary emerges, a great competitor finds another way to win. The rest of the article is worth the read for context. This excerpt alone didn't capture the full spirit of the article.

mac01021 7y ago

I always thought Kasparov was granted a tremendous opportunity by the advent of computer chess. He spent his life honing his skills, becoming better and better at chess until he was the very best. And then, when noone could challenge him, technology emerged that would allow him to continue being challenged and improving his chess game. Something no other human could allow him to do. Granted, I'm pretty ignorant about competitive chess and how to get better at it. But if my way of looking at it is valid then it probably applies to Lee Se-dol too.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
> And then, when noone could challenge him, technology emerged that would allow him to continue being challenged and improving his chess game. That technology's name? Vladimir Kramnik. At the time DeepBlue beat Kasparov, Kasparov was honestly still probably better than the computer. He just had a bad match. That was basically demonstrated by his and Kramnik's matches against presumably better computers (than DeepBlue) in the early-to-mid 2000s, which ended in draws. But Kramnik was also a strong competitor to Kasparov in the late 1990s into the 2000s.