[HN Gopher] After AI beat them, professional Go players got bett...
___________________________________________________________________
After AI beat them, professional Go players got better and more
creative
Author : iNic
Score : 191 points
Date : 2024-04-08 19:42 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.henrikkarlsson.xyz)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.henrikkarlsson.xyz)
| lordnacho wrote:
| This is the tip of the iceberg, right? It's foreshadowing AI
| helping experts become better. I can see it happening in a lot of
| creative fields, including software. Perhaps this is where it
| really pulls the experts from the juniors, because only experts
| will be able to judge whether the AI has helped him create
| something actually good.
| asolove wrote:
| Go is a constructed game with a precise definition of the rules
| and victory.
|
| The real challenge with AI helping experts is whether it can
| correctly help them balance their own value function for what
| "better" means. And whether we can still train human experts
| who can think about that independently with good judgement, if
| we've automated away the things that beginners would normally
| do to train their judgement with black boxes that they can't
| interrogate.
|
| Will be interesting for sure.
| gcanko wrote:
| It's exactly like the invention of agriculture. Not having to
| hunt for food gave more opportunities for intellectual pursuits
| because of having more free time.
| rwbt wrote:
| I'm skeptical of this argument. It gave free time to some
| people i.e. the landed gentry but also created the toiling
| peasants and a hierarchical civilization.
| choilive wrote:
| Many other types of governance was enabled by the
| agricultural revolution, not just feudalism.
| ohyes wrote:
| Toiling peasants had more free time than we do today.
| rwbt wrote:
| Hunter gatherers had more leisure than farming peasants.
| Surely, one can spot the trend.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| [citation needed]
| ummonk wrote:
| The amount of toiling they could do without dying was
| calorically limited. Having lethargy induced by a
| shortage of food doesn't necessarily mean a preferable
| lifestyle.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Pfft, disagree. Got laid off a year ago and have had
| nearly 100% free time since
| akira2501 wrote:
| The other possibility is that it destroyed the incidental dogma
| that tends to build up in these types of games and human
| activities. This is why I like the "hacker ethos" as much as I
| do, it tends to eschew things like "accepted" dogma in order to
| find additional performance that other people were just leaving
| on the table out of polite comfort.
| JustLurking2022 wrote:
| The dogma generally becomes accepted because it outperforms
| other known strategies. In a game like Go, that could
| previously take a while because there are so many possible
| follow-ups that it takes time to accumulate enough data on
| whether a new strategy is actually decisively better, or just
| worse but over-performing because it's less known.
|
| There's a big difference between those two and "the hacker
| ethos" will lead to a lot of the latter. However, now computers
| can simulate enough games to give a relatively high degree of
| confidence that a variation in strategy is truly better.
| Izkata wrote:
| I don't know how it's developed since, but from what I
| remember that was how it started - the AIs weren't following
| the standard moves (joseki) that we'd built up over centuries
| and human players were thrown off by the nonstandard
| responses that were working better than expected.
| coef2 wrote:
| So the progress of human proficiency in Go and our collective
| advancement over time is hindered by dogmatic rules introduced
| over time. These rules predispose players toward specific
| strategies and consequently limit the scope of our creative
| potential within the game. In contrast, AI algorithms operate
| without such biases offer a unique advantage in overcoming
| these limitations. They essentially inspire us to get out of
| established patterns (or local minima) of play and broaden the
| range of our strategic moves.
| dtnewman wrote:
| Just look to Chess. The top players today are _way_ better than
| any of the greats before, because they can train against
| computers and know exactly where they failed. That said, because
| they 've gotten so good, chess at the top levels is pretty
| boring... it's hard to come up with a unique strategy so players
| tend to be defensive. Lots of ties.
|
| On the other hand, chess is more popular than ever. It's huge in
| high schools. I see people playing it everywhere. I know that for
| me, I love being able to play a game and then view the computer
| analysis afterwards and see exactly what I did wrong (granted,
| sometimes a move can be good for a computer who will know how to
| follow through on the next 10 moves, but not necessarily good for
| _me_... but most of the time I can see where I made a mistake
| when the computer points it out).
|
| Side note: I play on LIChess and it's great. Is there an
| equivalent app for Go?
| tptacek wrote:
| online-go.com
| anononaut wrote:
| OGS is definitely the best server in the West. Deserves all
| patronage it gets and more. I wish the AGA was more
| supportive of it rather than KGS.
| naet wrote:
| KGS is still pretty great.
|
| OGS might be more accessible to new players with one click
| sign in and a better web app, but I think KGS has a higher
| population of true dan+ strength players, and has a
| stronger "culture" around community reviews and studying.
|
| It used to be even better, but there are less total people
| playing on KGS than the previous peak.
| tptacek wrote:
| I found the culture on OGS, particularly wrt moderation,
| to be pretty great (as a newcomer, and I exclusively play
| 9x9).
|
| I've read about KGS but I've never figured out how to
| engage with it. (I know it to be the OG, srs bzns venue,
| though).
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > I wish the AGA was more supportive of it rather than KGS.
|
| Out of curiosity, why do you like OGS more? I find the UX
| of KGS to be way more intuitive.
| fryz wrote:
| FWIW, I find the classical chess tournaments with the super GMs
| to be fairly interesting, if only because the focus of the
| games is more about the metagame than about the game itself.
|
| The article linked at the bottom of the source is a WSJ piece
| about how Magnus beats the best players because of the "human
| element".
|
| A lot about the games today are about opening preparation,
| where the goal is to out-prepare and surprise your opponent by
| studying opening lines and esoteric responses (somewhere
| computer play has drastically opened up new fields). Similarly,
| during the middle/end-games, the best players will try to force
| uncomfortable decisions on their opponents, knowing what
| positions their opponents tend to not prefer. For example, in
| the candidates game round 1, Fabiano took Hikari into a
| position that had very little in the way of aggressive counter-
| play, effectively taking away a big advantage that Hikaru would
| otherwise have had.
|
| Watching these games feels somewhat akin to watching generals
| develop strategies trying to out maneuver their counterparts on
| the other side, taking into consideration their strengths and
| weaknesses as much as the tactics/deployment of troops/etc.
| akkartik wrote:
| On the other hand, a game like Praggnanandhaa vs Vidit 2 days
| ago feels like Russian roulette.
|
| https://www.chess.com/news/view/2024-fide-candidates-
| tournam...
|
| Mistakes on both sides, including the side that presumably
| prepared this line with help from computers.
| jsheard wrote:
| > Just look to Chess. The top players today are way better than
| any of the greats before, because they can train against
| computers and know exactly where they failed.
|
| AlphaGo isn't available for anyone to train against like
| Stockfish is though, what are Go players using? Has another
| powerful Go engine been developed since then?
| espadrine wrote:
| KataGo is an open-source algorithm derived from AlphaGo, but
| with a number of tricks so that it trained faster:
| https://katagotraining.org/
|
| It likely surpasses AlphaGo, and just like Stockfish, it
| delivers a protocol that can hook into many user interface
| apps: https://github.com/lightvector/KataGo?tab=readme-ov-
| file#gui...
|
| From those technologies, also came an interesting
| visualisation of how human players changed their habits
| following AlphaGo: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16-ntvk3D1
| _pgjJ7u64t4jMYMh0z...
| SonOfLilit wrote:
| We use KataGo and sometimes LeelaZero (which is a replication
| of the AlphZero paper). KataGo was trained with more
| knowledge of the game (feature engineering and loss
| engineering), so it trained faster. It was also trained on
| different board sizes and to play to get a good result when
| it's already behind or ahead.
|
| KaTrain is a good frontend.
| kadoban wrote:
| > KataGo was trained with more knowledge of the game
| (feature engineering and loss engineering), so it trained
| faster.
|
| Not really important to your point, but it's not really
| just that it uses more game knowledge. Mostly it's that a
| small but dedicated community (especially lightvector)
| worked hard to build on what AlphaGo and LeelaZero did.
|
| Lightvector is a genius and put a lot of effort into
| KataGo. It wasn't just add some game knowledge and that's
| it. https://github.com/lightvector/KataGo?tab=readme-ov-
| file#tra... has a bunch of info if you're interested.
| SonOfLilit wrote:
| I wasn't at all trying to say his work was simple. I was
| trying to say "deepmind were trying to build an AI that
| gets good at games without anything in their structures
| being specialized for the game, lightvector asked what if
| we did specialize the model on Go". And he did some
| wonderfully clever things.
| timetraveller26 wrote:
| Don't know about go, but Lishogi is Lichess for shogi (Japanese
| chess)
| Bootvis wrote:
| Second round of the Candidates tournament played Friday had 4/4
| decisive games[1]. In general, a tie might be the most common
| result but even at the highest level there tend to be chances
| for both sides.
|
| [1]: https://lichess.org/broadcast/fide-candidates-2024--
| open/rou...
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| It's really up to the players. SuperGMs these days are
| somewhat addicted to draws because it's a very safe result in
| a tournament setting and in terms of rating. Therefore these
| players tend to favour less risky and more calculable
| openings. They care more about avoiding a loss than they do
| about winning.
|
| The idea that the large amount of draws is because players
| are so strong now, is mostly a myth. It's really just
| psychology and game theory at work.
|
| For a perfect illustration of all my points, look at Aronian
| vs Grischuk from the 2018 candidates tournament. Here both
| players chose to play into complications, and the resulting
| game was wildly complex, with both players making several
| suboptimal moves simply because the position was just too
| complex even for two of the strongest calculators in the game
| at the time.
|
| And in the end, they still ended up constructing a draw by
| repetition when all 3 results were still possible. Both
| players had good winning chances, yet the fear of losing
| finally overtook them and they collectively bailed out of the
| game.
|
| It's not that players are now so strong it's almost
| impossible to win, the players just aren't as willing to seek
| out the necessary positions.
| thatswrong0 wrote:
| I wish Chess960 was more popular for this exact reason. It's
| super fun to watch and play compared to normal Chess...
| basically all I do with my friends
| Taek wrote:
| I think you would see fewer ties if players got 0.2 points each
| for draws instead of 0.5 points each for draws.
|
| It makes the risk of going for a risky strategy lower (you only
| drop 0.2 pts instead of 0.5 vs getting an easy draw) and it
| makes the rewards much greater... a single win and 4 losses
| scores the same as 5 draws.
|
| you wont see players doing intentional draws anymore either
| whimsicalism wrote:
| think it is somewhat intrinsic to chess that it makes sense
| to go for ties as black in top tier play
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Football (Soccer) did something similar.
|
| Before that is was 2 points for a win, 1 point each for a
| draw.
|
| In 1981 they made it 3 points for a win, and the sport has
| had substantially more offensive play since.
| dfan wrote:
| One issue with this is that it encourages collusion. If
| you're a top GM playing someone of equal skill, it's +EV to
| agree to flip a coin beforehand to determine who will win
| (and then play a fake game) rather than playing it for real.
|
| Some chess tournaments have experimented with giving 1/3
| point for draws instead of 1/2 and it didn't really change
| much. Mostly it acted as a tiebreaker, which you could have
| done by just using "most wins" as a tiebreaker anyway.
|
| My favorite idea (not mine) for creating decisive results in
| chess is that when a draw is agreed, you switch sides and
| start a new game, but don't reset the clocks.
| neysofu wrote:
| Another possible solution would be to simply... remove draws
| from the game. Instead of checkmating the goal becomes to
| capture the opponent's king.
|
| Needless to say, no one likes this idea because it throws out
| of the window centuries of game theory. Endgames would be
| completely different. I'm not convinced it would be a less
| interesting game, though.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| There are many situations when this is for all practical
| purposes impossible.
|
| For example a King vs King endgame. Even really weak
| players will never accidentally put their king next to the
| opponent.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| at least as described, would not be sufficient to remove
| draws from the game - but would remove stalemates
| btilly wrote:
| And what happens if you wind up with king and rook vs king
| and rook?
|
| Some positions simply do not allow for a win. Yes, you
| could say do it on time. But then it becomes about
| mechanical dexterity as people try to be faster than their
| opponent in a pointless piece shuffle.
| neysofu wrote:
| Yeah, I didn't think it through. I'd imagine such a rule
| change would still make draws significantly less likely
| though, right?
| wh0knows wrote:
| If you have insufficient material how can you capture the
| king? Checkmate is by definition one move before forced
| capture of the king, the game doesn't change by making it
| end one move later.
| acchow wrote:
| > Instead of checkmating the goal becomes to capture the
| opponent's king.
|
| These are the same.
| neysofu wrote:
| They are not - if the goal becomes to capture the king,
| and check-related rules are removed from the game,
| stalemates become impossible.
| Angostura wrote:
| > The Queens Gambit turned quite a few of my daughter's friends
| on to chess
| hibikir wrote:
| The defensiveness has absolutely nothing to do with better
| computers and the improvements in play that came with it, but
| with tournaments where risk taking is an economic disaster. As
| others have said, there aren't massive numbers of ties in the
| candidates tournament, because the difference in value between
| being first and second is so massive that if you aren't first,
| you are last.
|
| Compare this to regular high level chess in the Grand Chess
| Tour: It's where most of your money is going to come from if
| you are a top player. Invitation to the tour as a regular is by
| rating, and there's enough money at the bottom of the tour than
| the difference between qualifying or not is massive. Therefore,
| the most important thing is to stay in the tour train. Lose 20
| points of rating, and barring Rex Sinquefield deciding to
| sponsor your life out of the goodness of his heart, you might
| as well spend time coaching, because there are so few
| tournaments where there's a lot of money.
|
| This also shows in the big difficulties for youngsters that
| reach 2650 or so: They are only going to find good enough
| opponents to move up quickly in a handful of events a year
| where people with higher rating end up risking their rating
| against them. See how something like the US championship is a
| big risk for the top US professionals, because all the young
| players that show are at least 50 points underrated, if not
| more.
|
| This is what causes draws, not computer prep. Anand was better
| at just drawing every game in every tournament back when he was
| still on the tour, and yet computers were far worse than today,
| especially with opening theory.
| ummonk wrote:
| And it simply doesn't have to be this way. The top
| tournaments could just use a prior qualification tournament
| with an open Swiss. Then invite the top finishers from the
| open Swiss to participate in the round robin. Can reserve an
| invitational wildcard or two but the rest should have to earn
| their place.
| santoshalper wrote:
| Very insightful!
| yeellow wrote:
| I recommend goQuest (mobile app), and playing 9x9 go. I used to
| play on KGS, but it is less crowded now (the problem is that
| there are too many servers: OGS, IGS, Tygem, Wbadul, etc and no
| one dominates, therefore you wait for the game, you need a
| rating, etc. Most are not very modern, mobile unfriendly,
| etc.). Also 19x19 takes too much time for me when comparing to
| chess, 9x9 is perfect, and goQuest has many active players,
| after a few seconds you get a match (they offer 13x13 and
| 19x19, but those are less active I suppose).
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| > That said, because they've gotten so good, chess at the top
| levels is pretty boring
|
| Yeah, I feel the same thing about Magic formats when the pros
| play. When a format is new and people are discovering, and they
| have to rely on their gut, and make educated guesses. That's
| when it's fun to play and watch.
| zer0-c00l wrote:
| https://online-go.com/ is the easiest place to get started as a
| western beginner. The far more active go servers are Asian and
| have a higher barrier to entry in terms of registration,
| downloading the client, and dealing with poor localization.
| (Fox Weiqi, Tygem, etc.)
| pushedx wrote:
| KGS is where I used to play, this is the homepage:
|
| https://www.gokgs.com/
|
| and this is the web client:
|
| https://shin.gokgs.com/
|
| The homepage hasn't had a redesign since at the latest 2007,
| but the community is great an there are top players on there.
| yinser wrote:
| Computers were always going to be better at searching large
| trees, now they can help steer new heuristics for human players.
| SonOfLilit wrote:
| I'm not sure a computer without search defeats the best human
| playing without any search, but I know it defeats 1dan players
| (very smart people who put in 5-10 years of deliberate
| practice) when they are allowed to use as much search as they
| are able.
| lvl102 wrote:
| Pro players train with AI and you can often see "blue dot" moves
| in tournament settings.
| anononaut wrote:
| It's become go broadcasting standard to show some AI bot's
| win/loss confidence percentage for a given board state. It was
| fascinating for a few years, but now I feel like it takes away
| from some of the magic of watching pro level play.
| tptacek wrote:
| When you read Go strategy resources, you see a lot of things
| divided into what best practices were before AlphaGo and what
| they are now. It's a whole big thing.
|
| It is still the case, though, that AI dominates humans at Go;
| humans didn't get so creative about the game that they put AI
| back on its toes (though some did discover exploitable AI
| "strategy bugs").
| pa7ch wrote:
| Agreed, but I still think humans should get a little more
| credit for winning against AI no matter how. Its a competitive
| game with very simple and clear rules. A hole in AI strategy is
| a hole, even if quickly patched!
|
| I am still so impressed that Lee Sedol beat Alpha Go 1 game out
| of 5 way back when AI made its breakout. I was sad he felt so
| sheepish afterward for losing. In hindsight, I think it was an
| amazing accomplishment even if today an AI could beat Shin Jin-
| Seo (#1 player) 100 out of 100 times!
| paulcole wrote:
| This is true in Scrabble as well.
|
| When I was playing seriously there were strong players who
| played a ton over a board and had deep intuition about what
| made plays good and what made plays bad. In the late 1990s/
| early 2000s there started to be a lot more in the way of
| computer simulation and analysis and some very strong computer
| players.
|
| One (general) example was that older players liked the idea of
| making longer plays using more tiles to "win" a race to the S
| and blank tiles (the best tiles in the bag). Computer
| simulations generally show that turnover (as this is called)
| isn't optimal and you're better off holding strong combinations
| of letters rather than playing them off hoping to draw
| something better.
|
| Now younger players are better than ever because all of their
| training came with the help of computer analysis and
| simulation.
|
| Of course in Scrabble a huge part of it comes down to just
| memorizing the words in the dictionary.
| cdelsolar wrote:
| AI doesn't dominate people in Scrabble though. The best
| humans are better than the best AI.
| samatman wrote:
| I wouldn't have expected that. Is it just a relative lack
| of interest in building an AI which can dominate Scrabble?
|
| It's a partial-information game, but the search space can't
| be as big as Go, and an AI has an advantage over human
| players in that the entire valid string family can be
| encoded into a trie or some other efficient data structure,
| it's never going to forget a word or think it can play one
| that isn't valid.
|
| My intuition is that AI should be able to crush the best
| human players at this point in time, but I'm open to being
| corrected on that if there's some aspect of the game which
| I'm not modeling correctly.
| ultrasaurus wrote:
| That strikes me as odd too -- but it might be because
| searching a dictionary is such an obvious computer
| advantage that it's not interesting to optimize. There
| are only 10 articles on arxiv.org that mention Scrabble
| vs 100s on Chess
|
| https://arxiv.org/search/?query=scrabble&searchtype=all&s
| our...
| paulcole wrote:
| Just finding the highest scoring word won't make you all
| that good. If you played the highest scoring play
| available to you each turn you wouldn't be that strong of
| a player. Maybe around top 200-500 or so in the US I
| would guess? And it'd be a super exploitable strategy by
| a decent player.
|
| The reason is that you need to apply some rules, like
| when to trade vs. making a play, balancing consonants and
| vowels for future plays, what parts of the board are too
| dangerous to make certain plays in, etc. It's because of
| the distribution of unplayed tiles, the high-scoring
| spots on the board, and the 50-point bonus for using all
| of your tiles.
|
| Because of that, generally, you'll do better by building
| towards a 50-point bonus play every 3 or 4 turns than by
| maxing your score on each turn.
|
| I'd be curious about letting a human player play with the
| assistance of the best bot available and seeing how much
| better that would make them. I guess part of the issue
| though is that in a 13 play game maybe 3 plays are
| meaningfully difficult. So it'd take awhile to see if the
| human is improving on the bot or not.
| paulcole wrote:
| I'll admit I'm out of the loop but how many people in the
| world today do you think can beat BestBot over a
| significantly long series? Do you think there's going to be
| a bot that dominates people in series like that?
|
| I've been following Mack Meller's YT channel and he's
| getting beaten pretty handily in his series.
|
| I'd put the over/under on people playing today who would
| beat BestBot in a 100-game series at say 3.5. What side
| would you take?
| SonOfLilit wrote:
| You also see a similar division to 19th century and 20th
| century when a player called Go Seigen changed the way the game
| is player even more, I feel, than AI did (but don't take my
| word, at 7kyu I'm far from qualified to understand how
| professionals play)
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > When you read Go strategy resources, you see a lot of things
| divided into what best practices were before AlphaGo and what
| they are now. It's a whole big thing.
|
| Yes and no. The biggest takeaway from AI is that learning all
| the joseki doesn't actually matter that much, which has freed
| up players (except for the pros) to spend more of their time
| focusing on the more fun and interesting parts of the game.
|
| There are a lot of videos showing what josekis and strategies
| the AI recommends, but as a human you're likely not going to be
| any better off following them.
| Mtinie wrote:
| This supports with my hypothesis about human-created art, post-
| AI.
|
| People are deeply concerned about how their livelihoods and
| identities will survive the next few years. I get it, and while
| there's certainly a level of existential dread that feels
| reasonable, I don't see many people yet discussing what the
| visual arts industries will look like on the other side.
|
| If Go play is in any way a creative exercise--which I've heard it
| is-- then I'm super interested to see the state of humans in the
| arts 24 months out from now.
| jsheard wrote:
| There is a key difference in the way these models are trained -
| Chess and Go have clearly defined win conditions, so a model
| can be taught to explore the possibility space and try to reach
| victory by any means necessary, potentially with strategies
| which have never been seen before. With art on the other hand
| there is no objective measure of quality, so the models are
| instead taught to treat already existing art as the benchmark
| to strive towards, making them trite by nature.
|
| As I see it AI can absolutely find innovative solutions, but
| only if you can clearly and explicitly define the problem it
| needs to solve.
| Mtinie wrote:
| I use diffusion models and other generative tools to give me
| inspiration for works. While these aren't solutions, per say,
| the tools do help me define (and refine) my approaches and
| offer visual options to consider.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _With art on the other hand there is no objective measure of
| quality, so the models are instead taught to treat already
| existing art as the benchmark to strive towards, making them
| trite by nature._
|
| Isn't this reminiscent of the arguments that were made at the
| dawn of photography as an art form? Some were afraid that
| portraiture was finished as an art form, but we got
| Impressionism, Cubism, and a host of other innovative forms
| to take its place. Never mind that portraiture was not in
| fact killed by photography, nor was any other visual form.
|
| Others swore that cameras and film would never be valid
| implements of art, but they got awfully quiet when Adams and
| Weston and others showed up on the scene, and you don't hear
| much from them at all these days.
|
| If nobody was afraid of AI -- if nobody was screaming bloody
| murder about how urgent it was to stop it -- only _then_
| could we safely say that it will have no role or relevance in
| art.
| smokel wrote:
| Most of contemporary art is unaffected by the current AI craze.
|
| On one hand, the art world has been steadily pushing boundaries
| since the 19th century, and computer technology is just one
| blip on the vast radar of interesting subjects (other
| fashionable ones being gender, colonialist history, social
| practices, and physical properties of paint).
|
| On the other hand, art is mostly created by artists who were
| professionally trained as artists, i.e. not as scientists.
| Knowledge about computer technology is typically rather limited
| with both artists and collectors, leading to fairly bland
| stuff, or properly misguided hypes such as NFTs.
| Mtinie wrote:
| > Most of contemporary art is unaffected by the current AI
| craze.
|
| The illustrators and digital artists I know would generally
| disagree.
|
| As an abstract painter, I agree with you.
|
| Significant genre specificity.
| zerocrates wrote:
| Just finally getting around to reading/finishing my copy of Seven
| Games by Oliver Roeder, which covers checkers, chess, go,
| backgammon, poker, Scrabble and bridge, and the efforts for
| computers winning/solving each.
|
| A common theme is the effects of the computers on the human
| players in elevating (but maybe also homogenizing) play.
| Art9681 wrote:
| When AI beats Go players, they roll up their sleeves and practice
| their passion and try to get better.
|
| When AI beats Hollywood...
| Tenoke wrote:
| The reward in Hollywood and most professional fields is about
| who makes the best/most cost efficient product no matter what.
|
| If the same was true for chess or go then players would be
| using computer assistance in every top level game.
| anononaut wrote:
| I see the point you're making, and well made, but I think it
| also highlights a distinction in problems between the two. In
| the case of go, people who want to play go are the main
| motivating force. In the case of movies, I don't give a damn
| about Hollywood, the money, the studios, the IP, the actors. I
| only care about the quality of the film. Maybe the autuer, if
| there is one.
|
| AI changing conceptions about chess or go is very different
| than generative Ai which can radically change the means of how
| something is produced. I'm still going to play go because I
| love it. Meanwhile, I would happily cut out film studios (as we
| know them) if it meant I got to watch quality cinema.
| intuitionist wrote:
| The blog doesn't say anything about how this "decision quality"
| metric is calculated... but presumably it's using very similar Go
| evaluation functions to the ones used in the superhuman AI
| players, right? I think it's highly unsurprising that humans
| would improve by that metric -- they're learning from the
| machine, so of course the machine likes it.
|
| Also, most things in life are not two-player zero-sum games where
| you can construct an evaluation function and build a "decision
| quality" metric out of it. So I'm not sure what the takeaway
| should be in those cases.
| SonOfLilit wrote:
| Computers are so much better than humans at Go that the metric
| for board evaluation applies better to human games than it does
| to computer games. Just as I'm better at evaluating code
| written by GPT than code written by senior developers.
|
| Otherwise you'd see players who don't train with computers
| winning in tournaments against those who do.
| intuitionist wrote:
| Yeah, I don't think the metric is wrong or bad, just that
| it's not telling us anything special. Or maybe it's telling
| us something about Go AIs (that the "insights" they have are
| human-comprehensible) but it's not at all clear that this
| fully generalizes.
| visarga wrote:
| Of course it doesn't work that easy in other fields.
| Basically the go board is an environment, the the AI model
| learns by creating its experiences in the environment.
|
| This can be applied to other kinds of environment, such as
| code execution, simulation, video games, human-AI chat
| rooms or robots. But each environment has its own
| complexity and searching for good strategies can take a
| long time. It's the same with scientific research, got to
| validate the theory in the world.
| SonOfLilit wrote:
| It sounds from your analysis that "better as evaluated by
| AI" would be true even if it wasn't really objectively
| better. All I'm saying is that yes, it does mean
| objectively better in this case.
| matthest wrote:
| Entertainment is one industry that will survive post-AI.
|
| We're still going to want to watch _humans_ play sports, music
| and video games. We 're going to want to watch _humans_ act, cook
| food, and make vlogs.
|
| The chess industry is growing rapidly, even though it has already
| been conquered by AI:
| https://www.einpresswire.com/article/649379223/chess-market-...
| ultra_nick wrote:
| There are content farms in Facebook churning out fake grandkids
| for old folks to fawn over.
| suyash wrote:
| That's the next one on the chopping block, wait till Sora and
| related services comes out, it's all going to be digitally
| generated and will look just as real so yes it will be content
| about humans but without human doing/creating much of it.
| tylerchilds wrote:
| as both an engineer and an entertainer, perception is
| reality. on the one hand, a computer system could 1:1
| recreate a stunt a human did and elevate it to a stunt a
| human couldn't do.
|
| people witness entertainment to trick their minds, and the
| disbelief and astonishment in the human condition hinges on
| "there's no way _i_ could do that" and once they know they
| literally could not have done it, they're not impressed. they
| may pay to be fooled once, but never twice.
|
| there's a market for what you're talking about, but that
| space is b2b and not c2c, which is where entertainment money
| flows.
|
| tl;dr dollar for dollar, ai vs taylor swift, taylor swift
| wins every time, no contest.
| chasd00 wrote:
| humans will always have contests to see which human or group of
| humans is the best at something and it will always be
| entertaining to watch the contests. op is right.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| As a lifelong musician, AI music has reached a level where it's
| able to write absolute bangers AND soulful music with feeling.
| Last weekend I listened to AI music all weekend long in
| absolute shock.
|
| People will still want to go to concerts, but a lot of that
| music will either be written by, or inspired by AI.
|
| This is one that I generated that has me convinced anyway. I
| made about 100 versions in different styles, but this makes my
| hair stand up.
|
| https://app.suno.ai/song/77d97c83-8633-47d2-80b2-fe47952a6bc...
|
| And a stoner rock banger:
|
| https://app.suno.ai/song/2071317f-a5ba-4f1f-b77b-048d6ff03a9...
|
| I mean, even if you don't think it's perfect, you re-record
| those and no one's going to know it's AI.
| Lacerda69 wrote:
| AI will force artists to learn how to draw perfect hands as every
| artwork with bad hands will be instantly flagged as generated.
| timetraveller26 wrote:
| I watched the alpha go doc and it was really shocking to me when
| one of the top go players decided to retire because the game was
| meaningless now that computers could beat anybody.
|
| it's good seeing that that wasn't the case for all players.
| Solvency wrote:
| i don't get it, this applies to every single game. you can't
| beat aimbots in fps, you can even rig any game bot to play
| perfectly.
|
| that's why you play against HUMANS.
| gensym wrote:
| I enjoy rock climbing even though I'll never be as good as a
| monkey or a mountain goat.
| krisoft wrote:
| Yeah but the difference is that you were always worse than
| a monkey or a mountain goat. And those are all worse than
| someone riding a helicopter to the top. So you didn't had
| to change your mindset in this regard ever.
|
| Imagine if you grow up where there are no monkeys, mountain
| goats or helicopter rides to the top. You never heard of
| them, they are not a thing in your world. And you put in
| hard work to become a very very good rock climber. You
| kinda fancy yourself an apex climber. Maybe your mate
| George is a bit faster than you sometimes, but sometimes
| you are faster than him. Sometimes Sarah beaths the both of
| you, but sometimes you beat her times. You are kinda up
| there with the bests as far as you know. And then suddenly
| someone brings a monkey to your rock climbing gym and the
| monkey smokes all of you. It climbs walls much better than
| you ever could. Now you have to adapt. Will you change your
| viewpoint and start seeing yourself as "best among humans"
| and keep competing like that? Or will you see yourself as
| "clearly outcompeted so badly I might even give up"? Some
| people will go one way, some the other way. And then the
| new generation will grow up with the knowledge of monkeys,
| and they all naturally will be only the first kind of
| people, who understand that they can't be the best only
| best among their class.
|
| Go players had their "the first monkey shows up in the
| climbing gym" moment during our lifetime. That is why you
| see some of the players react like that. That is a very
| different world from rock climbing where everyone already
| knows about monkeys, and mountain goats and helicopter
| rides since forever. Every person currently climbing rocks
| started climbing with the existence of monkeys, mountain
| goats and helicopters already incorporated into their
| thinking way before they climbed their first wall.
| anononaut wrote:
| Pros saw the writing on the wall, but remember that no bot
| was even particularly close to pro strength until 2016. Go
| was dogmatically described as still being decades away from
| bots being able to play competitively. For some professionals
| like Lee Sedol, the burning desire was to play the best games
| and best moves possible. To such an abstract game about
| intuition, seeing it finally be dominated by machines could
| understandably be crushing.
| krisoft wrote:
| > this applies to every single game
|
| But it did not used to apply for every single game. In fact
| in Go it was famously true just a few years ago that the best
| humans were waay waay better than even the best computers.
|
| At uni I hung out with Go players and they had all kind of
| theories why Go is particularly hard for computers. Some of
| them well quite well reasoned, and some were just a bunch of
| magical thinking. What was not in doubt is that even at that
| admitedly medium level the players were better than the
| computers they had access to.
|
| Just a few years ago it went from "we are competing to be the
| best Go players period" to "we are competing to be the best
| human Go players". That is a change in mindset, and it seems
| at least for that one particular player they couldn't make
| the change.
|
| Imagine that you grew up in a world where aimbots are just
| worse than mediocre players, always. And you build up your
| personal motivations with this fact. And then suddenly the
| aimbots get better than even the best players. Some systems
| of motivation will crumble when this happens. Some will
| manage to adapt. This is just how it is.
| fjfaase wrote:
| Lee Sedol continued games until the summer of 2019, more than
| three years after the match. He quickly dropped in strength
| while other players who already were stronger than him during
| the challenge were further rising in strength, surpassing all
| previous players according to the graph shown at the Go Ratings
| website. https://www.goratings.org/en/history/
|
| Just like in mathematics many professional Go player peak
| before 40, after which the slowly become weaker and weaker.
| usgroup wrote:
| Can I rephrase this? "Professional Go players finally have a
| software good enough to beat them, as a result of which they got
| better by using the software".
| ajkjk wrote:
| No? The article makes the point explicitly that they did not
| only get better by using the software; they're also better at
| playing moves the computer does not play.
| SonOfLilit wrote:
| It makes the point that they learned not only by
| memorization. They still learned it by using the software.
| kccqzy wrote:
| > Shin et al calculate about 40 percent of the improvement came
| from moves that could have been memorized by studying the AI. But
| moves that deviated from what the AI would do also improved, and
| these "human moves" accounted for 60 percent of the improvement.
|
| I don't often play Go myself but a number of my friends do. Among
| non-professional players, it is really common to see game play
| being not as exciting as before because there's now an easy way:
| just memorize and copy what the AI does. I don't doubt that
| professional players still have a ton of creativity, but a lot of
| non-pros don't really have too much creativity and the whole game
| becomes memorizing and replicating AI moves.
| thomasahle wrote:
| > a lot of non-pros don't really have too much creativity and
| the whole game becomes memorizing and replicating AI moves.
|
| That makes no sense. After 10-20 moves you are surely in a
| position that has never been played before. How do you memorize
| moves after that?
| datameta wrote:
| Perhaps sub-positions still repeat with some regularity?
| Meaning subsets of the board. I have never played Go however,
| I've only seen the board and read the rules.
| hibikir wrote:
| You'd be surprised. Joseki are corner shapes, which might
| interact with other corners in the medium to long run, but
| whose interactions are way too difficult for any human to
| understand well. Therefore, you have 4 corners, and it's
| quite likely that you'll see 4 joseki getting played in any
| game. Joseki sequences have been studied for a long time, so
| they can be relatively long: Say, 15+ moves of an avalanche
| joseki, memorized by both players, and that's just one
| corner. So even before computers were any good, you could
| still see pretty iffy players using memorized patterns in
| every corner for a total way past 20 moves.
| tasuki wrote:
| The accepted approach used to be that the direction of play
| mattered. Now the AI has told us that no, just get locally-
| even results in all corners and you're fine. I never would've
| guessed!
| anononaut wrote:
| Before that, weak amateurs were just replicating human joseki.
| That's nothing new. They definitely give a player a good start,
| but knowing which to use and when, and of course how to follow
| up until the game is over is no simple task. It also happens to
| be the case that AlphaGo, KataGo etc. prefer simplifying the
| board state. Remove complexity and win only by a thin margin,
| because that's all that's needed. Memorizing AI preferences is
| much easier than some of these highly complicated joseki.
| csa wrote:
| > Among non-professional players, it is really common to see
| game play being not as exciting as before because there's now
| an easy way: just memorize and copy what the AI does
|
| This is just... not true.
|
| Unless one is playing at high dan ranks, it's trivially easy to
| induce a "memorized sequence" that your opponent either will
| not have memorized or will leave them with a situation that
| they don't understand well enough to capitalize on.
|
| The "slack moves" in the openings that pros talk about are
| often worth 1.5 points or less (often a fraction of a point),
| and that assumes pro-level follow up.
|
| This pro-level follow up is laughably rare outside of strong
| amateur dan levels and pro levels (and even within those ranks
| there are substantial differences).
| idkdotcom wrote:
| Go is a finite search game. So each chess.
|
| Equating intelligence to being good as these games is as silly as
| equating intelligence to being good at solving differential
| equations. Computers have bested humans at solving differential
| equations for many decades now. Nobody said "gee humans are now
| stupid".
|
| AI, as a knowledge field, is biased in this notion that all it
| matters when it comes to intelligence is that computers beat
| humans at Go or Chess.
| suyash wrote:
| It's just a little boost, AI will keep getting better and better
| at faster pace, humans will have to figure out a different
| strategy all together.
| bravura wrote:
| 1) I would really be interested in broad brush strokes to
| understand how go theory has expanded.
|
| 2) I really wish we could shake the ant-farm with chess and go
| Fischer random chess. There's something nice about not having to
| memorize openings.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| At the same time, the familiarity of openings is nice.
|
| Imagine completely random WoW battlegrounds. Part of the fun is
| knowing the territory and strategies rather than having to make
| them up from scratch each game.
| f_allwein wrote:
| ,,Winning does not tempt that man. This is how he grows: by being
| defeated, decisively, by constantly greater beings"
|
| Rilke, ,,The Beholder"
|
| https://martyrion.blogspot.com/2009/11/man-watching-der-scha...
| andrewstuart wrote:
| If I was a professional player of any sort of game that AI can
| play then I would never play against AI.
|
| Just be a human, play against other humans. Who cares what AI can
| do?
| bongodongobob wrote:
| People who want to get better care. Everyone who plays chess
| uses AI to improve.
| ummonk wrote:
| The article is misleading regarding the history of chess. Magnus
| excepted, most top players did adopt a more cold and calculating
| material-focused chess style that mimicked Deep Blue and
| subsequent chess computers. It was only with the success of
| AlphaGo and LC0 that top chess players have started playing a
| more creative playstyle again, playing various wing pawn
| advances, as well as being more willing to give up material for
| nebulous initiative or positional advantages.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| Seven years ago I took remote Go playing lessons from a South
| Korean professional player. I stopped after about 5 months and
| started using CS Pro Go on my iPad Pro and it has a nice teaching
| feature of rating every one of my moves so after a game I can see
| where my biggest mistakes were. This is different than pro
| players learning new surprising strategies, for me it is nice to
| use.
| seoulmetro wrote:
| Is this a surprise? The best people at any craft learn from the
| people that beat them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-08 23:00 UTC)