you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -30 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (18 children)

Humans invented and made the AI, so idk why this article is phrased as if humans are inferior :D

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    The thing the AI can do is consider 14 million futures and choose the one where it wins. Humans usually can't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    But humans can jump to conclusions that AI would never "think" of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    actually recentish chess bots showed playing in a uniquely bot sort of way by sacking points for long term position control well past current human norms was a viable strat

    google ‘deep positional sacrifice used as a tool for total restriction’ for videos on it

    so if anything it’s reverse

    chess isn’t solved but it is deterministic not some purely subjective creative art

    why would a human be better at it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Theoretically the humans would win one every so often because sometimes humans "zig" when AI can only "zag"? It's like scientific calculators doing math way more quickly than any human on earth, but they are not necessarily better at it. I don't know, it's a brave new world and you may be right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    yea nah

    it being a deterministic game means there is a right answer or correct play at each point

    now we obviously realized our foundational principles are wrong at times, otherwise this new computer method would not have been shocking but that was a human failing and not something you could exploit against a bot

    the kind of leap you are envisioning is something that would only really work in a chaotic system

    the idea being there that human can leap to a right conclusion not completely supported by facts

    you could arguably just call that gambling

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    I wouldn't call it a "leap" but a few years ago some researchers did find a weird byway in the then-current go-playing "AI"s (neural-network setups, as someone else pointed out). They had to cheat a bit by examining the NN's "thinking" more directly, and found a cyclic strategy that allowed a human to beat the machine.

    https://www.far.ai/blog/even-superhuman-go-ais-have-surprising-failure-modes

    It's interesting for more "AI"-type stuff generally. The point is not so much "us with our special brains will always find ways to defeat AI" but more "there are odd blind spots that you would not predict by just looking at the output/games, and these can be exploited with appropriate technology."

    Edit: remove redundantly redundant redundancy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    By that logic all children are inferior to their parents, and therefore the greatest of us is... Oog the caveman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Huh, which logic? I'm genuinely confused. I'm just saying that it's weird that the article is phrasing it like humans are inferior to the Go engine when it's literally humans who created the Go engine. Just because humans lose to a machine doesn't make humans inferior, which the article insinuates.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    The implication that something that creates something else is superior to the thing it creates is a fallacy. There is no inherent relationship between them whatsoever - it is only measurable via direct measurement of performance. The claim that "humans created the Go engine makes them superior" is exactly the same amount of logically incorrect as the "it's a machine so it's superior" claim.

    If your claim that creating something means superiority held true, Lebron James' dad must be better than him at basketball. And I know that's a ridiculous claim. But it's logically equivalent to your own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Do you really think your parents created the entirety of what constitutes "you"?

    It's not logically equivalent at all, a child learns on its own without parents, or through all kinds of other influences. In addition, if your parents actually knew how to make a human, they would be able to exactly replicate a previous human they created. But this is absolutely impossible, even with genetic clones, as no human actually has any idea how to get another human to be exactly the same as another.

    In contrast, someone (or a collection of humans) understands completely how the best Go engine works. They can perfectly replicate the current Go engine by writing the same code again. The Go engine is a product solely by the human mind and, if the code were lost, can be remade by applying the same principles.

    "Creating a human" is nothing any human has ever done. Humans have been created by million of years of evolution. In this context, if you want logical equivalency, "nature/universal laws" (or if you're so inclined, "god") would be the equivalent representation of what humans are to a Go engine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Most partial differential equations have no analytic solution, but we can still solve them numerically. We design the algorithms, we prove they provide the correct solutions in the right conditions, but given the amount of computation and steps required to arrive at a solution, for the hardest problems (ie navier-stokes), it is practically impossible for a human to do by hand.

    It doesn't mean the computer is better. It's just a tool used to solve a problem. In this case that problem is go, and that computer is really good at solving it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment