5 ms·

I thought it would be an easy victory I ... ended up only winning one out of our five games It's interesting, how an expert in a field can be unaware of h

I thought it would be an easy victory I ... ended up only winning one out of our five games It's interesting, how an expert in a field can be unaware of how AI is taking over. And a few years later, no human can compete anymore. I think we are in a similar situation in multiple professions today. For example with self-driving. Musk recently said, that other car manufacturers are not much interested in talks about licensing FSD because they don't think it can work. In ten years, probably no human can compete with AI drivers anymore.

svachalek 3y ago
> In ten years, probably no human can compete with AI drivers anymore. That's what they said 10 years ago. Sooner or later people will say it and be right, but the last few percent of any problem is a lot harder than people give it credit for. It may not be that hard to stay in a lane or write a little code, and that may look like it's doing most of the job, but those common tasks are just the easy part.
- huytersd 3y ago
  I think Waymo does better than a vast percentage of human drivers. It’s here already.
  - cjbgkagh 3y ago
    But the average hour is not driven by the average driver, better drivers drive more hours, so it has to be better than the average driver in order to result in fewer incidents.
    - huytersd 3y ago
      There’s no reason better drivers drive more hours. You can be a shit semi driver. That being said, it’s an irrelevant comment. If it’s at average now this is the worst it can get and it’s already way above average.
      - cjbgkagh 3y ago
        I don’t disagree that self driving is good and will eventually get there. Just pointing out a flaw in your reasoning. Yes, such a person can exist, the hypothetical counter example doesn’t disprove the general statement. I think it’s safe to say that in general the more time someone spends driving the better driver they are.
- ArtTimeInvestor 3y ago
  10 years ago, a lot of FSD was still manually written code. Manually written code gets harder and harder to improve, the larger the codebase. Now it is all NNs and therefore will scale with more data and more compute. Which is increasing exponentially. So far it seems like they are not hitting diminishing returns.
  - Buttons840 3y ago
    Yeah, and plain Q learning is able to iteratively improve a policy in any environment. Every single loop leading to improvement, and yet it hasn't really solved much of anything since the 60s (just some toy problems). My point being, we don't know where the asymptote lies. Computers have had self improving algorithms since the 60s, and people have been making the same bold claims, like you, that because an iterative process for improvement has been discovered, we're close to super human AI since the 60s too.
- bevekspldnw 3y ago
  “Driving” is solved. Driving with humans on the road - doing unpredictable human things - is far off still. My guess is industrial and home robotics will solve a lot of the “doing things around humans” problems in the next ten years. Why the hell people decided to automate giant death machines before perfecting small things never made sense to me.
  - ArtTimeInvestor 3y ago
    Driving the giant death machines costs us billions of manhours every day. Hundreds of billions of manhours per year. Which small thing puts a similar burden on mankind?
    - bevekspldnw 3y ago
      Phones.
  - jsheard 3y ago
    > “Driving” is solved. Driving with humans on the road - doing unpredictable human things - is far off still. Plus there's serious questions about liability with self driving cars which are still unresolved in most of the world - if the goal is to have vehicles operate themselves with no human supervision, who goes to jail when they kill someone? Despite all of the progress that's been made with AI it's mostly been in low-stakes problems where failure isn't a big deal, so we don't have a consensus on what we're supposed to do when a neural network negligently obliterates a person because some logistics company wanted to save a few bucks on driver salaries.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ghaff 3y ago
      The answer almost certainly has to be the manufacturer. I'm sure not responsible if my properly maintained and used self-driving car kills someone. That said, it's a novel area that doesn't have a clear analog to other products today.
bongodongobob 3y ago
You do realize this was 8 years ago, and no Go engine came even close to what Alpha Go was able to do right? Afaik, there weren't even any competitive engines period. It basically came out of nowhere.
- ArtTimeInvestor 3y ago
  That's what I meant. That's how it usually goes with technological progress. In any field. Progress is minimal for a few years and then suddenly jumps up very suddenly. So to predict what's coming, you can't just extrapolate the progress of recent years. You have to account for it being exponential with a very uneven distribution of sudden jumps.
  - pvg 3y ago
    In any field. That would be pretty strange. For a trivial counterexample, you can look up the history of integrated circuits from invention to today.
  - zehaeva 3y ago
    I'm not sure one can, from today that is, really understand how huge of a leap was made by AI at this time. Even going back to the closest analogue, chess, there were good chess engines for a long time prior to Kasparov loosing in 97 to deep blue. Even before Kasparov lost Chess engines were pretty good, just look at the game in 96 when Kasparov won. A grand master would still need to put some thought into how he played. In Go however even the best engines couldn't hold a candle to a professional player, let alone someone who was the equivalent of a chess grand master. Hell, even as a lowly amateur player I was able to trounce some of the most powerful AIs at the time. Looking at some of the Pro vs AI games back in the early 2010s it's almost painful how bad they were. It's hard to communicate just how huge of a leap this was, and just how shocking to the whole Go community. It would be like a child one day being unable to speak and the literal next day reciting Shakespeare.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    AlphaGo took many AI researchers by surprise. An even bigger surprise came next year, with AlphaZero: "AlphaZero was a reinforcement learning system that was able to master three different perfect information games - chess, shogi (Japanese chess), and Go - at superhuman levels by just learning from self-play, without using any human expert games or domain knowledge crafted by programmers. Its predecessor AlphaGo, which defeated the world champion Go player in 2016, was revolutionary but relied on human expert games and domain-specific rules coded by the DeepMind researchers. AlphaZero started from random play and used a general-purpose reinforcement learning algorithm to iteratively improve its gameplay through self-play, ending up with superior performance compared to the best human players and previous game-specific AI systems. Many experts were stunned that a general algorithm could rediscover from scratch the millennia-old principles and strategies for these highly complex games, often discovering novel and counterintuitive moves along the way."
lawn 3y ago
> It's interesting, how an expert in a field can be unaware of how AI is taking over. I think the interesting thing is how an expert in a field is wholly unprepared for predicting how the future will develop. You mention what Musk has said about FSD and how it will completely take over in just ten years, but I feel compelled to point out that Musk has said that it's just right around the corner with only small challenges left, for many years. I wouldn't place any faith in anything Musk says.
- nemothekid 3y ago
  Musk wasn't wrong - he just wasn't the person to deliver it. Waymo, AFAICT works astonishingly in San Francisco. I think you can argue that it might not work in the snow, but that's pretty much it
  - Veserv 3y ago
    Musk was wrong. He said specifically and unequivocally that Tesla would be delivering fully autonomous vehicles to customers within a year, every year for the last 8 years. Just to get ahead of anybody claiming it was not a firm promise, in 2019: “ I think we will be feature-complete full self-driving this year, meaning the car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up, take you all the way to your destination without an intervention — this year. I would say that I am certain of that. That is not a question mark." [1] See that part where he says: “I would say that I am certain of that. That is not a question mark.” That is called a firm promise. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-doubles-down-on-claim-about-self-driving-tech-2019-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-doubles-down-on-cl...
  - lawn 3y ago
    If Musk was right we would've been there almost a decade ago. And we're still not really there yet. They work great during some conditions and in certain areas, but they're still nowhere close to making human drivers obsolete.
jfengel 3y ago
At the time, I think everybody was unaware of this. Everybody followed the development of machine chess, but it was widely assumed that machine go was an entirely different category of difficulty. Chess engines gradually encroached on the very top grandmasters. AlphaGo came out of nowhere.
hyperpape 3y ago
At the time, the only public results were demonstration games against a much weaker professional. The actual strength of the machine was only known privately within DeepMind.
SkyMarshal 3y ago
> It's interesting, how an expert in a field can be unaware of how AI is taking over. And a few years later, no human can compete anymore. Easy to see that in hindsight, but when the game was actually played it was earlier in the development of AI and less apparent how good it had become.
dvh 3y ago
FSD will never work because it concentrates defendants into single juicy target. When your neighbor Bob (who is still paying mortgage and his wife is battling cancer and who occasionally babysit your kids) ran over your cat, you don't sue him. But you would sue Tesla. Mark my words, in 10 years ex-programmers will be throwing shelter cats under FSD cars just to earn a living.
- xcv123 3y ago
  It will have 100 cameras capturing surround footage of ex-coders throwing cats at the vehicle. Case dismissed.

svachalek 3y ago

> In ten years, probably no human can compete with AI drivers anymore. That's what they said 10 years ago. Sooner or later people will say it and be right, but the last few percent of any problem is a lot harder than people give it credit for. It may not be that hard to stay in a lane or write a little code, and that may look like it's doing most of the job, but those common tasks are just the easy part.

huytersd 3y ago
I think Waymo does better than a vast percentage of human drivers. It’s here already.
- cjbgkagh 3y ago
  But the average hour is not driven by the average driver, better drivers drive more hours, so it has to be better than the average driver in order to result in fewer incidents.
  - huytersd 3y ago
    There’s no reason better drivers drive more hours. You can be a shit semi driver. That being said, it’s an irrelevant comment. If it’s at average now this is the worst it can get and it’s already way above average.
    - cjbgkagh 3y ago
      I don’t disagree that self driving is good and will eventually get there. Just pointing out a flaw in your reasoning. Yes, such a person can exist, the hypothetical counter example doesn’t disprove the general statement. I think it’s safe to say that in general the more time someone spends driving the better driver they are.
ArtTimeInvestor 3y ago
10 years ago, a lot of FSD was still manually written code. Manually written code gets harder and harder to improve, the larger the codebase. Now it is all NNs and therefore will scale with more data and more compute. Which is increasing exponentially. So far it seems like they are not hitting diminishing returns.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  Yeah, and plain Q learning is able to iteratively improve a policy in any environment. Every single loop leading to improvement, and yet it hasn't really solved much of anything since the 60s (just some toy problems). My point being, we don't know where the asymptote lies. Computers have had self improving algorithms since the 60s, and people have been making the same bold claims, like you, that because an iterative process for improvement has been discovered, we're close to super human AI since the 60s too.
bevekspldnw 3y ago
“Driving” is solved. Driving with humans on the road - doing unpredictable human things - is far off still. My guess is industrial and home robotics will solve a lot of the “doing things around humans” problems in the next ten years. Why the hell people decided to automate giant death machines before perfecting small things never made sense to me.
- ArtTimeInvestor 3y ago
  Driving the giant death machines costs us billions of manhours every day. Hundreds of billions of manhours per year. Which small thing puts a similar burden on mankind?
  - bevekspldnw 3y ago
    Phones.
- jsheard 3y ago
  > “Driving” is solved. Driving with humans on the road - doing unpredictable human things - is far off still. Plus there's serious questions about liability with self driving cars which are still unresolved in most of the world - if the goal is to have vehicles operate themselves with no human supervision, who goes to jail when they kill someone? Despite all of the progress that's been made with AI it's mostly been in low-stakes problems where failure isn't a big deal, so we don't have a consensus on what we're supposed to do when a neural network negligently obliterates a person because some logistics company wanted to save a few bucks on driver salaries.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ghaff 3y ago
    The answer almost certainly has to be the manufacturer. I'm sure not responsible if my properly maintained and used self-driving car kills someone. That said, it's a novel area that doesn't have a clear analog to other products today.

bongodongobob 3y ago

You do realize this was 8 years ago, and no Go engine came even close to what Alpha Go was able to do right? Afaik, there weren't even any competitive engines period. It basically came out of nowhere.

ArtTimeInvestor 3y ago
That's what I meant. That's how it usually goes with technological progress. In any field. Progress is minimal for a few years and then suddenly jumps up very suddenly. So to predict what's coming, you can't just extrapolate the progress of recent years. You have to account for it being exponential with a very uneven distribution of sudden jumps.
- pvg 3y ago
  In any field. That would be pretty strange. For a trivial counterexample, you can look up the history of integrated circuits from invention to today.
- zehaeva 3y ago
  I'm not sure one can, from today that is, really understand how huge of a leap was made by AI at this time. Even going back to the closest analogue, chess, there were good chess engines for a long time prior to Kasparov loosing in 97 to deep blue. Even before Kasparov lost Chess engines were pretty good, just look at the game in 96 when Kasparov won. A grand master would still need to put some thought into how he played. In Go however even the best engines couldn't hold a candle to a professional player, let alone someone who was the equivalent of a chess grand master. Hell, even as a lowly amateur player I was able to trounce some of the most powerful AIs at the time. Looking at some of the Pro vs AI games back in the early 2010s it's almost painful how bad they were. It's hard to communicate just how huge of a leap this was, and just how shocking to the whole Go community. It would be like a child one day being unable to speak and the literal next day reciting Shakespeare.
- xcv123 3y ago
  AlphaGo took many AI researchers by surprise. An even bigger surprise came next year, with AlphaZero: "AlphaZero was a reinforcement learning system that was able to master three different perfect information games - chess, shogi (Japanese chess), and Go - at superhuman levels by just learning from self-play, without using any human expert games or domain knowledge crafted by programmers. Its predecessor AlphaGo, which defeated the world champion Go player in 2016, was revolutionary but relied on human expert games and domain-specific rules coded by the DeepMind researchers. AlphaZero started from random play and used a general-purpose reinforcement learning algorithm to iteratively improve its gameplay through self-play, ending up with superior performance compared to the best human players and previous game-specific AI systems. Many experts were stunned that a general algorithm could rediscover from scratch the millennia-old principles and strategies for these highly complex games, often discovering novel and counterintuitive moves along the way."

lawn 3y ago

> It's interesting, how an expert in a field can be unaware of how AI is taking over. I think the interesting thing is how an expert in a field is wholly unprepared for predicting how the future will develop. You mention what Musk has said about FSD and how it will completely take over in just ten years, but I feel compelled to point out that Musk has said that it's just right around the corner with only small challenges left, for many years. I wouldn't place any faith in anything Musk says.

nemothekid 3y ago
Musk wasn't wrong - he just wasn't the person to deliver it. Waymo, AFAICT works astonishingly in San Francisco. I think you can argue that it might not work in the snow, but that's pretty much it
- Veserv 3y ago
  Musk was wrong. He said specifically and unequivocally that Tesla would be delivering fully autonomous vehicles to customers within a year, every year for the last 8 years. Just to get ahead of anybody claiming it was not a firm promise, in 2019: “ I think we will be feature-complete full self-driving this year, meaning the car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up, take you all the way to your destination without an intervention — this year. I would say that I am certain of that. That is not a question mark." [1] See that part where he says: “I would say that I am certain of that. That is not a question mark.” That is called a firm promise. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-doubles-down-on-claim-about-self-driving-tech-2019-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-doubles-down-on-cl...
- lawn 3y ago
  If Musk was right we would've been there almost a decade ago. And we're still not really there yet. They work great during some conditions and in certain areas, but they're still nowhere close to making human drivers obsolete.

jfengel 3y ago

At the time, I think everybody was unaware of this. Everybody followed the development of machine chess, but it was widely assumed that machine go was an entirely different category of difficulty. Chess engines gradually encroached on the very top grandmasters. AlphaGo came out of nowhere.

hyperpape 3y ago

At the time, the only public results were demonstration games against a much weaker professional. The actual strength of the machine was only known privately within DeepMind.

SkyMarshal 3y ago

> It's interesting, how an expert in a field can be unaware of how AI is taking over. And a few years later, no human can compete anymore. Easy to see that in hindsight, but when the game was actually played it was earlier in the development of AI and less apparent how good it had become.

dvh 3y ago

FSD will never work because it concentrates defendants into single juicy target. When your neighbor Bob (who is still paying mortgage and his wife is battling cancer and who occasionally babysit your kids) ran over your cat, you don't sue him. But you would sue Tesla. Mark my words, in 10 years ex-programmers will be throwing shelter cats under FSD cars just to earn a living.

xcv123 3y ago
It will have 100 cameras capturing surround footage of ex-coders throwing cats at the vehicle. Case dismissed.