9 ms·

For those who are scared about this technology, it’s good to look at what AI has done to Chess. The best chess seems to be when AI is used along with humans. I

For those who are scared about this technology, it’s good to look at what AI has done to Chess. The best chess seems to be when AI is used along with humans. I think image and video AI will best be exploited when human input is also taken into account. There is still something special about human creativity, I think AI will just be another tool to expand that. At least, in the short term I would say 10 years perhaps. AI will probably one day take over all aspects of creativity and humans won’t be able to contribute.

looknee 4y ago
I may be mistaken but I believe that human/machine pairing was dominant for a long while, but the last few years the chess solvers have progressed to a point where they're dominant on their own. Poker on the other hand I think human players still win vs GTO solvers, but again I may be mistaken here too.
- dwohnitmok 4y ago
  > Poker on the other hand I think human players still win vs GTO solvers, but again I may be mistaken here too. Also an outsider, but I think this has changed in the last year and that AI now is consistently better than top-tier humans at even no-limits poker.
- lairv 4y ago
  I think AI now beat humans at poker https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190711141343.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190711141343.h... https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~noamb/papers/19-Science-Superhuman.pdf https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~noamb/papers/19-Science-Superhuman.p...
  - LarsDu88 4y ago
    Is there a single "intellectual" game left that humans can beat computers at? I suppose an AI has yet to beat lebron james at basketball, but I suppose that's for want of having a body.
dwohnitmok 4y ago
> The best chess seems to be when AI is used along with humans. I don't think this is true anymore. I don't think I've heard about successful centaur chess games in years. I would love to be wrong there though (in particular if anyone knows about how correspondence chess games have been played in the last 2 or 3 years with the availability of Leela Zero and Stockfish NNUE).
- dwohnitmok 4y ago
  Found this interesting article http://chessforallages.blogspot.com/2021/02/correspondence-chess-in-2020s.html http://chessforallages.blogspot.com/2021/02/correspondence-c... which linked to this thread on the topic: https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=76382 https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=76382 Based on that thread, it looks like centaur chess is close to dead. > Human input in top-level ICCF [correspondence games with chess engine support] games is now 99% eliminated, other than personal preference in selection of openings.
fooblaster 4y ago
top tier chess ais crush human grandmasters and achieve super human performance with no assistance
dotsam 4y ago
Don't worry, humans will still be relevant for ~10 years!. (and then regrettably irrelevant thereafter). I think it is a legitimate worry, as the pace of progress is considerable. These tools are impressive, and are only going to get more impressive: more people should be talking about where this is headed.
- trention 4y ago
  These models are literally one French court decision away from being banned and investment in them being completely halted. So I wouldn't worry too much about them specifically.
  - ronsor 4y ago
    Why French court? If other countries don't ban them, France will just be hurting itself.
    - trention 4y ago
      A french court banning it will probably be a (short) precursor to an EU-wide ban which is effectively a worldwide ban. EU courts will be fining companies heavily if they don't comply which effectively means big tech no longer invests a penny in models. I use 'French court' here mostly because I believe it most likely to be firstly litigated there.
      - CalRobert 4y ago
        I imagine plenty of companies in the rest of the world will happily make use of it.
        trention 4y ago
        Spoiler alert: EU can fine and (if needed) seize assets of companies based outside of the EU.
synu 4y ago
There are two classes of engines. One is like you describe, faster and faster brute forcing. AlphaZero was much more creative and didn’t use brute force.
nonima 4y ago
>it’s good to look at what AI has done to Chess It completely ruined the game to the point where it's more about memorization than it's ever been.
abeppu 4y ago
I think a key difference here is that with chess, 'goodness' is defined by winning. With content generation, the training methods point towards some form of comparing the generated thing to some observed data, but the 'goodness' of the content from the perspective of potentially competing with or displacing human creators is "do people like to consume it?" If one trained using e.g. a tiktok like dataset showing viewer response measurements for each video, and do conditional generation on those response values ("prank video watchers are highly likely to watch the full video"), are we really that far from a system that learns to generate content that attracts and hold eyeballs? Not so long ago there were a lot of concerning trend pieces about how youtube had a network of creators making bizarre, disturbing or transfixing videos being watched entirely by young children. Before that, it was clickbait listicles. "Bad" content that can get eyeballs can still wildly steer what humans create and consume. I'm wondering if in 2 years we'll have an enormous number of short videos that we all agree are "bad" but which are nevertheless constantly watched.
astrange 4y ago
What does “best” mean here? AI is the winningest in chess, but the real life purpose of chess is to produce interesting gameplay for people to watch, and so AI is less good than Magnus at that. You’d need the AI to throw games and write press releases.
wayeq 4y ago
what? Alphazero trained via self play and in ~10 hours became unbeatable by humans

looknee 4y ago

I may be mistaken but I believe that human/machine pairing was dominant for a long while, but the last few years the chess solvers have progressed to a point where they're dominant on their own. Poker on the other hand I think human players still win vs GTO solvers, but again I may be mistaken here too.

dwohnitmok 4y ago
> Poker on the other hand I think human players still win vs GTO solvers, but again I may be mistaken here too. Also an outsider, but I think this has changed in the last year and that AI now is consistently better than top-tier humans at even no-limits poker.
lairv 4y ago
I think AI now beat humans at poker https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190711141343.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190711141343.h... https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~noamb/papers/19-Science-Superhuman.pdf https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~noamb/papers/19-Science-Superhuman.p...
- LarsDu88 4y ago
  Is there a single "intellectual" game left that humans can beat computers at? I suppose an AI has yet to beat lebron james at basketball, but I suppose that's for want of having a body.

dwohnitmok 4y ago

> The best chess seems to be when AI is used along with humans. I don't think this is true anymore. I don't think I've heard about successful centaur chess games in years. I would love to be wrong there though (in particular if anyone knows about how correspondence chess games have been played in the last 2 or 3 years with the availability of Leela Zero and Stockfish NNUE).

dwohnitmok 4y ago
Found this interesting article http://chessforallages.blogspot.com/2021/02/correspondence-chess-in-2020s.html http://chessforallages.blogspot.com/2021/02/correspondence-c... which linked to this thread on the topic: https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=76382 https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=76382 Based on that thread, it looks like centaur chess is close to dead. > Human input in top-level ICCF [correspondence games with chess engine support] games is now 99% eliminated, other than personal preference in selection of openings.

fooblaster 4y ago

top tier chess ais crush human grandmasters and achieve super human performance with no assistance

dotsam 4y ago

Don't worry, humans will still be relevant for ~10 years!. (and then regrettably irrelevant thereafter). I think it is a legitimate worry, as the pace of progress is considerable. These tools are impressive, and are only going to get more impressive: more people should be talking about where this is headed.

trention 4y ago
These models are literally one French court decision away from being banned and investment in them being completely halted. So I wouldn't worry too much about them specifically.
- ronsor 4y ago
  Why French court? If other countries don't ban them, France will just be hurting itself.
  - trention 4y ago
    A french court banning it will probably be a (short) precursor to an EU-wide ban which is effectively a worldwide ban. EU courts will be fining companies heavily if they don't comply which effectively means big tech no longer invests a penny in models. I use 'French court' here mostly because I believe it most likely to be firstly litigated there.
    - CalRobert 4y ago
      I imagine plenty of companies in the rest of the world will happily make use of it.
      - trention 4y ago
        Spoiler alert: EU can fine and (if needed) seize assets of companies based outside of the EU.

synu 4y ago

There are two classes of engines. One is like you describe, faster and faster brute forcing. AlphaZero was much more creative and didn’t use brute force.

nonima 4y ago

>it’s good to look at what AI has done to Chess It completely ruined the game to the point where it's more about memorization than it's ever been.

abeppu 4y ago

I think a key difference here is that with chess, 'goodness' is defined by winning. With content generation, the training methods point towards some form of comparing the generated thing to some observed data, but the 'goodness' of the content from the perspective of potentially competing with or displacing human creators is "do people like to consume it?" If one trained using e.g. a tiktok like dataset showing viewer response measurements for each video, and do conditional generation on those response values ("prank video watchers are highly likely to watch the full video"), are we really that far from a system that learns to generate content that attracts and hold eyeballs? Not so long ago there were a lot of concerning trend pieces about how youtube had a network of creators making bizarre, disturbing or transfixing videos being watched entirely by young children. Before that, it was clickbait listicles. "Bad" content that can get eyeballs can still wildly steer what humans create and consume. I'm wondering if in 2 years we'll have an enormous number of short videos that we all agree are "bad" but which are nevertheless constantly watched.

astrange 4y ago

What does “best” mean here? AI is the winningest in chess, but the real life purpose of chess is to produce interesting gameplay for people to watch, and so AI is less good than Magnus at that. You’d need the AI to throw games and write press releases.

wayeq 4y ago

what? Alphazero trained via self play and in ~10 hours became unbeatable by humans