5 ms·
Human absolutely bring negative value to a chess match for at least 10 years now (when pairing with a computer). Even for Go AI, where it is only ~6 years old
by NhanH 4y ago
Human absolutely bring negative value to a chess match for at least 10 years now (when pairing with a computer).
Even for Go AI, where it is only ~6 years old now, I'd still believe that human bring 0 value to a computer. 2-3 years ago, there was still some precise sequence where human might conceivable be dealing with (due to the nature of MCTS, human was better at reading deep narrow move sequences -- in go player term, human was sometimes better at life & death + some ladder sequences). Nowadays, the network are just way stronger than any human that we can't really follow what is going on in serious hour-long matches of the machine.
- qzw 4y ago> Human absolutely bring negative value… I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?
- benreesman 4y agoIt sounds like somebody's got a case of the WFH movement is gutting middle management ;) In all seriousness though, this stuff is sobering to say the least. It's dangerous to extrapolate from 80% to 100%, but it's entirely possible that these things get good enough to take a meaningful bite out of software jobs. It would be supremely ironic if after a decade of thinking taxi and truck drivers were going to be put out of work it turns out computer programmers have their jobs threatened by generative models sooner!
- int_19h 4y agoAfter looking at the outputs for anything reasonably complicated, well... If this steals our bread, then we deserve it.
- qzw 4y agoStackoverflow is probably just going to be filled with "What prompt do I need to write to get my AI to output the code I want?" questions instead.
- qzw 4y agoIt would be ironic indeed, but the whole thing with "taxi and truck drivers will soon be made obsolete by AI" was also based on extrapolating from 80% to 100% (IIRC, Uber was saying they'd be completely driverless by 2025).
- benreesman 4y agoThanks for the informative reply! You sound quite knowledgable about this kind of thing so I'll pose a follow-up question(s). What game or broad category of game is the least dominated by machines these days? When I first saw the AlphaStar/StarCraft stuff it seemed that there was still plenty of room for humans to be competitive in a general sense, but that was some time ago. It's hard for me to imagine that 10 years from now there will be a game that isn't machine-dominated, but I could be wrong on either side: maybe that's true now, and maybe there's a set of games that still has DeepMind totally stumped!
- NhanH 4y agoDisclaimer first: I'm not a ML practioner, so this might be wrong, though I'm guessing not too blatantly. In a broad stroke, I think all games should and could be dominated by machines nowadays -- though because it is no longer an interesting problem, no one really tried to do it anymore. The last big challenges were dealing with incomplete information game (poker, starcraft) and continuous state space game (starcraft, dota etc.), which was solved ~2-3 years ago. There is still challenges (AI still favor short-term rewards, while human has better long term planning), as well as technicalities (the machines doesn't really play like human: if you can control individual units, certain things like overkill doesn't happen anymore and certain units suddenly becomes overpowered). But those are just obstacles to playing a perfect game, you can still beat human reliably even with those limitation.