4 ms·

To me this is a story of one AI beating another. Yes, there were humans involved on both sides of the equation.

culi 4y ago
well if you're gonna deconstruct things to that level then you could also equivalently say this is and always has been a story of one(/a group of) human(s) beating another
- labrador 4y ago
  You could impress me more if you told me a human Go player beat an AI Go player without the aid of AI
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    Impressive that in the same thread you swung from "computers can't understand Go like humans" to "humans can't understand Go a swell as computers without computer help"
    - labrador 4y ago
      > humans can't understand Go a swell as computers without computer help That's not what I said. What I said and what was my intended meaning was that humans can understand Go at a deeper level with a the aid of a computers. The computers don't understand go at all. They're software.
  - squeaky-clean 4y ago
    I doubt there are any high level players in the world of games like Go that haven't studied with an AI. Or at the very least spent time practicing against one. Even if you only learned Go from humans, somewhere along the lines someone probably taught you something that was learned via AI.
fjfaase 4y ago
True, one AI was used to found a weakness in another AI. But then it turned out that the weakness could easily be used to defeat that the AI by a strong amateur level player. 6 Dan amateur is about 1 Dan professional, realizing that Lee Sedol was a 9 Dan professional player. I guess that many amateur Dan players can master the weakness. It also seems to shows that the AI does not have the 'deep understanding' of Go as it was thought to have to be able to beat the top professional players. We might be still a long way away from an AI that truly understand the game. And if this is true for one game, it might also be the case for many other AIs. The road to General Intelligence might still be a long road.
- labrador 4y ago
  Maybe because I'm a programmer but your comment mystifies me a little because I never thought the AI player had a 'deep understanding' of Go any more than I think string sort routines have a deep understanding of all the alphabets in the world. > long way away from an AI that truly understands the game What do people mean you mean by this? An AI that can follow the process of human reasoning that mimics human understanding or an AI that actually reasons about any topic by having human agency and awareness? Another point: I'm assuming The AI that lost can be fixed. Maybe very soon.
  - fwlr 4y ago
    The claim about AI having a deep understanding of Go comes from top tier Go players "After humanity spent thousands of years improving our tactics, computers tell us that humans are completely wrong... I would go as far as to say not a single human has touched the edge of the truth of Go." - Ke Jie, the number #1 Go player in the world at the time, speaking after his loss to an AI
    - labrador 4y ago
      I'm not hearing Ke Jie saying computers understand Go. I'm hearing Ke Jie saying that machine enhancement of Go playing has shown there is very much more to the game of Go than we realized. To me it is like the invention of the microscope and how it showed there was a whole world of microbes we didn't know about, but no one says microscopes understand microbes.

culi 4y ago

well if you're gonna deconstruct things to that level then you could also equivalently say this is and always has been a story of one(/a group of) human(s) beating another

labrador 4y ago
You could impress me more if you told me a human Go player beat an AI Go player without the aid of AI
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Impressive that in the same thread you swung from "computers can't understand Go like humans" to "humans can't understand Go a swell as computers without computer help"
  - labrador 4y ago
    > humans can't understand Go a swell as computers without computer help That's not what I said. What I said and what was my intended meaning was that humans can understand Go at a deeper level with a the aid of a computers. The computers don't understand go at all. They're software.
- squeaky-clean 4y ago
  I doubt there are any high level players in the world of games like Go that haven't studied with an AI. Or at the very least spent time practicing against one. Even if you only learned Go from humans, somewhere along the lines someone probably taught you something that was learned via AI.

fjfaase 4y ago

True, one AI was used to found a weakness in another AI. But then it turned out that the weakness could easily be used to defeat that the AI by a strong amateur level player. 6 Dan amateur is about 1 Dan professional, realizing that Lee Sedol was a 9 Dan professional player. I guess that many amateur Dan players can master the weakness. It also seems to shows that the AI does not have the 'deep understanding' of Go as it was thought to have to be able to beat the top professional players. We might be still a long way away from an AI that truly understand the game. And if this is true for one game, it might also be the case for many other AIs. The road to General Intelligence might still be a long road.

labrador 4y ago
Maybe because I'm a programmer but your comment mystifies me a little because I never thought the AI player had a 'deep understanding' of Go any more than I think string sort routines have a deep understanding of all the alphabets in the world. > long way away from an AI that truly understands the game What do people mean you mean by this? An AI that can follow the process of human reasoning that mimics human understanding or an AI that actually reasons about any topic by having human agency and awareness? Another point: I'm assuming The AI that lost can be fixed. Maybe very soon.
- fwlr 4y ago
  The claim about AI having a deep understanding of Go comes from top tier Go players "After humanity spent thousands of years improving our tactics, computers tell us that humans are completely wrong... I would go as far as to say not a single human has touched the edge of the truth of Go." - Ke Jie, the number #1 Go player in the world at the time, speaking after his loss to an AI
  - labrador 4y ago
    I'm not hearing Ke Jie saying computers understand Go. I'm hearing Ke Jie saying that machine enhancement of Go playing has shown there is very much more to the game of Go than we realized. To me it is like the invention of the microscope and how it showed there was a whole world of microbes we didn't know about, but no one says microscopes understand microbes.