4 ms·

The important part of the quote there is "where computers can compete". Go-bots have a long way to go before they'll be considered competitive.

by rwolf 17y ago

naveensundar 17y ago
What do you mean "where computers can compete"? That is just begging the question. Is it ok to assume Turing based computation will go where you say they will go?
- rwolf 17y ago
  he said if (competitive) { requires perfection from human opponent } you brought up a game where the condition does not apply. "competitive" in an understood word: can a computer tie consistently against what we agree is a moderately skilled player?
- xiaoma 17y ago
  It means where computers are competitive with even a journeyman club player. 4 years ago, I would have said, Computers "can compete" at go about like humans "can compete" with Siberian Huskies in multi-day footraces over snow-covered tundra. I'm a terrible go player, and yet I can still give the strongest go program in the world full 9-stone handicap and crush it. Interestingly, more computing power hadn't really helped. The best programs of 2005 sucked just about as much as the best programs of 1995. Recently, though, it's changed. MoGo beat a 9-dan professional with just a 7-stone handicap this year at the 2009 Taiwan Open. And it's won multiple games against pros on smaller boards straight-up. http://epochtimes.com/b5/9/2/11/n2425091.htm http://epochtimes.com/b5/9/2/11/n2425091.htm
  - naveensundar 17y ago
    Still begging the question using fuzzy terms. "If computers are sort of good they are very good!" That statement doesn't mean anything concrete. Don't the recent results in GO invalidate : if(computers can compete) {humans have to be perfect} ? When does the conditional get satisfied? The moment there is a basic implementation which follows all the rules of the game or according to some fuzzy notion of "compete" which gets changed conveniently :)
    - rwolf 17y ago
      The poster you replied to did not say Go-bots were competitive yet. He said they had shown a lack of progress in the face of increasing resources until recently. The only thing I'm saying here is that your counterexample does not make sense because Go-bots are famously bad at Go.
      - naveensundar 17y ago
        >The only thing I'm saying here is that your counterexample does not make sense because Go-bots are famously bad at Go. I don't think so. Please see the link below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go#Recent_results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go#Recent_results Of course you can still refuse the recent results, and say they are not competitive :)
    - xiaoma 17y ago
      In the simplest terms, it means that AI performance is less variable. A computer that can give you a good match on a good day will beat you on the days you're tired, distracted, or ill. And the computer won't have bad days. Conversely, if you're a bit better than the computer and manage to find a few of its weaknesses, you can exploit them again and again and it will never learn how to stop you (in any AI I've played against).

The important part of the quote there is "where computers can compete". Go-bots have a long way to go before they'll be considered competitive.

by rwolf 17y ago

The important part of the quote there is "where computers can compete". Go-bots have a long way to go before they'll be considered competitive.

naveensundar 17y ago

What do you mean "where computers can compete"? That is just begging the question. Is it ok to assume Turing based computation will go where you say they will go?

rwolf 17y ago
he said if (competitive) { requires perfection from human opponent } you brought up a game where the condition does not apply. "competitive" in an understood word: can a computer tie consistently against what we agree is a moderately skilled player?
xiaoma 17y ago
It means where computers are competitive with even a journeyman club player. 4 years ago, I would have said, Computers "can compete" at go about like humans "can compete" with Siberian Huskies in multi-day footraces over snow-covered tundra. I'm a terrible go player, and yet I can still give the strongest go program in the world full 9-stone handicap and crush it. Interestingly, more computing power hadn't really helped. The best programs of 2005 sucked just about as much as the best programs of 1995. Recently, though, it's changed. MoGo beat a 9-dan professional with just a 7-stone handicap this year at the 2009 Taiwan Open. And it's won multiple games against pros on smaller boards straight-up. http://epochtimes.com/b5/9/2/11/n2425091.htm http://epochtimes.com/b5/9/2/11/n2425091.htm
- naveensundar 17y ago
  Still begging the question using fuzzy terms. "If computers are sort of good they are very good!" That statement doesn't mean anything concrete. Don't the recent results in GO invalidate : if(computers can compete) {humans have to be perfect} ? When does the conditional get satisfied? The moment there is a basic implementation which follows all the rules of the game or according to some fuzzy notion of "compete" which gets changed conveniently :)
  - rwolf 17y ago
    The poster you replied to did not say Go-bots were competitive yet. He said they had shown a lack of progress in the face of increasing resources until recently. The only thing I'm saying here is that your counterexample does not make sense because Go-bots are famously bad at Go.
    - naveensundar 17y ago
      >The only thing I'm saying here is that your counterexample does not make sense because Go-bots are famously bad at Go. I don't think so. Please see the link below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go#Recent_results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go#Recent_results Of course you can still refuse the recent results, and say they are not competitive :)
  - xiaoma 17y ago
    In the simplest terms, it means that AI performance is less variable. A computer that can give you a good match on a good day will beat you on the days you're tired, distracted, or ill. And the computer won't have bad days. Conversely, if you're a bit better than the computer and manage to find a few of its weaknesses, you can exploit them again and again and it will never learn how to stop you (in any AI I've played against).