290
Go grandmaster becomes first human to win series against advanced AI engine in 3-hour match (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/boardgames@sopuli.xyz
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •