The heroes of Hikaru’s Go were off by 86 years.
As some of you might have heard, the word of go – or weiqi as it is known in its homeland of China – is currently undergoing its Deep Blue moment as one of the world’s strongest players Lee Sedol faces off against Google’s DeepMind AlphaGo project. Deep Blue was the IBM/Carnegie Mellon supercomputer that in 1997 beat the world’s top grandmaster Gary Kasparov in a series of 6 chess games. But the computer’s margin of victory at 3.5 to 2.5 was modest, and the event was dogged by Kasparov’s allegations that the IBM team had underhandedly helped the computer. It would be an entire decade before the top computer chess programs decisively overtook the top human players. As of today, there is a 563 point difference between the Elo rating of Magnus Carlsen, the current highest rated human player on the FIDE’s database, and the world’s most powerful chess program, the open source Stockfish 7. In practical terms, this means that Carlsen can expect to win fewer than one in a hundred games against the Stockfish running on a contemporary 64-bit quadcore CPU.
In terms of game complexity, more orders of magnitude separate go from chess than chess from draughts, a game that has been fully solved. The aim is to capture territory and enemy stones by encircling them while defending your own turf, both of which are tallied up at the end of the game with the winner being the one with the most points. It is played on a 19×19 board, a lot larger than the 8×8 arrangement of chess, and you can position your pieces – or stones – on any empty space not occupied by or completely encircled by the enemy, whereas the range of possible moves in chess is strongly constricted. Chess is tactics, go is logistics; chess is combined arms, go is encirclements; chess draws strongly upon algorithmic and combinatorial thinking, whereas go is more about pattern matching and “intuition.” Therefore it is not surprising that until recently it was common wisdom that it would be many decades before computers would start beating the world’s top human players. The unimpressive performance of existing go computer programs, and the slowdown or end of Moore’s Law in the past few years, would have only given weight to that pessimistic assessment. (Or perhaps optimistic one, if you’re with MIRI). Lee Sedol himself thought the main question would be whether he would beat AlphaGo by 5-0 or 4-1.
Which makes it all the more remarkable that Lee Sedol is not just behind but having lost all of his three games so far is getting positively rekt.
But apparently Lee’s confidence was more rational than hubris. He had watched AlphaGo playing against weaker players, in which it made some apparent mistakes. But as a DeepMind research scientist noted, this was actually feature, not bug:
As Graepel explained, AlphaGo does not attempt to maximize its points or its margin of victory. It tries to maximize its probability of winning. So, Graepel said, if AlphaGo must choose between a scenario where it will win by 20 points with 80 percent probability and another where it will win by 1 and a half points with 99 percent probability, it will choose the latter. Thus, late in Game One, the system made some moves that Redmond considered mistakes—“slow” in his terminology. These moves seemed to give up points, but from where Graepel was sitting, AlphaGo was merely trying to maximize its chances.
In other words, while the projected points on the board – territory held plus stones captured – might for a long time appear to be roughly equal, at the same time the probability of ultimate victory would inexorably shift against Lee Sedol. And capped as our human IQs are, not only Lee but all the rest of us might be simply incapable of discerning the deeper strategies in play: “And so we boldly go – into the whirling knives” (to borrow from Nick Bostrom’s book on the risks of computer superintelligence).
Those are in fact the exact terms in which AI scientist/existential risks researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky analyzed this game in a lengthy Facebook post:
At this point it seems likely that Sedol is actually far outclassed by a superhuman player. The suspicion is that since AlphaGo plays purely for *probability of long-term victory* rather than playing for points, the fight against Sedol generates boards that can falsely appear to a human to be balanced even as Sedol’s probability of victory diminishes. The 8p and 9p pros who analyzed games 1 and 2 and thought the flow of a seemingly Sedol-favoring game ‘eventually’ shifted to AlphaGo later, may simply have failed to read the board’s true state. The reality may be a slow, steady diminishment of Sedol’s win probability as the game goes on and Sedol makes subtly imperfect moves that *humans* think result in even-looking boards.
For all we know from what we’ve seen, AlphaGo could win even if Sedol were allowed a one-stone handicap. But AlphaGo’s strength isn’t visible to us – because human pros don’t understand the meaning of AlphaGo’s moves; and because AlphaGo doesn’t care how many points it wins by, it just wants to be utterly certain of winning by at least 0.5 points.
In the third game, which finished just a few hours ago – by the way, you can watch the remaining two games live at the DeepMind YouTube channel, though make sure to learn the rules beforehand or it will be very boring – Lee Sedol, by then far behind on points, made a desperate ploy to salvage the game (or more likely just use the opportunity to test AlphaGo’s capabilities) by initiating a ko fight. A ko is a special case in go in which a local altercation sharply becomes the fulcrum around which the outcome of the entire game might be decided. Making the winning moves requires perfect, precise play as opposed to AlphaGo’s key method of playing out billions of random games and choosing the one which results in the most captured territory after n moves.
But AlphaGo handled the ko situation with aplomb, and Lee had to resign.
The Korean Lee Sedol is the fourth highest rated go player on the planet. But even as of March 9, were it a person, AlphaGo would have already displaced him. The top player in the world is the Chinese Ke Jie, who is currently 100 Elo points higher than Lee. According to my calculations, this implies that Lee should win slightly more than a third of his matches against Ke Jie. His actual record is 2/8, or 25%. Not only is his current tally against AlphaGo is 0/3, but he was beaten by a considerable number of points by an entity that is perfectly content to minimize its lead in order to to maximize its winning probability.
Finally, a live predictions market on whether Lee Sedol would defeat AlphaGo in any of the three games remaining (that is, before the third match) varied between 20%-25%, implying that the probability of him winning any one game against the the DeepMind monster was less than 10%. (If anything, those probabilities would be even lower now that AlphaGo has demonstrated ko isn’t its Achilles heel, but let us set that aside).
According to my calculations, IF this predictions market is accurate, it would imply that AlphaGo has a ~400-450 Elo point superiority over Lee Sedol based on its performance up to and including the first two games against him.
It would also mean it would be far ahead of Ke Jie, who is the highest ranked human player ever and is currently virtually at his peak. Whereas Lee can only be expected to win 7%-9% of his games against AlphaGo, for Ke Jie this figure would be only modestly higher at 12%-15%. But in principle I see no reason why AlphaGo’s capabilities couldn’t be even higher than that. It’s a long tail – and we can’t see all that far ahead!
But really the most astounding element of this is that what took chess computing a decade to accomplish increasingly appears to have occured in the space of a few days with AlphaGo – despite the slowdown in Moore’s Law in recent years, and the problems of go being far more challenging than those of chess in terms of traditional AI approaches.
For all intents and purposes AI has entered the superhuman realm in a problem space where merely human intelligence had hitherto ruled supreme, and even though we are as far away as ever from discovering the “Hand of God” – the metaphorical perfect game, which will take longer than the lifetime of the universe to compute if all of the universe were to become computronium – we might well be starting the construction of a Sliver of Him.
Update –
Lee won the fourth game!
A win rate of 25% means that AlphaGo’s Elo likely superiority over Lee’s current 3519 points has just plummeted from 400-450 (based on predictions market) to 191, i.e. 3710. Still higher than top player Ke Jie at 3621.
If Lee loses the next game, that Elo difference goes up to 241; if he wins, it gets reduced further to 120. Regardless, we can now say with considerable confidence that AlphaGo is peak human level but decidedly not superhuman level.
Update 2 –
Final remarks:
Was writing article instead of watching final Lee-AlphaGo game but final score is 4:1. Reverse of what Lee had originally predicted! 😉
Anyhow 4:1 score (w/out looking into details) implies Alpha has probabilistic ~240 point higher Elo rating than Lee Sedol i.e. ~3760.
That means its likely ~140 points higher than first ranked human Ke Jie and should beat him about 70% of the time.
I had a look at go bots historic performance other day. Looks like they move up by 1 S.D. every two years or so. Treating AlphaGo as the new base, humans should be completely outclassed by computer in go by around 2020.
Lee is taking a dive.
AK: Grabbing at any straw to deny technological progress sometimes does happen. 😉
Quantum computer can beat AlphaGo
In fact AlphaGo itself estimates “how well it is doing” throughout the game, and at least in the second game (I didn’t see the other post match press conferences) thought things were even for a considerable amount of time. This lends further credence to the opinion of knowledgable watchers that the opponents are fairly evenly matched (the computer isn’t cryptically playing on a different plane as you and Big Yud speculate.)
We can anticipate, however, that very soon it will be. The question is how much that matters. Let’s imagine that instead of an analog memory enhancement device (game board and pieces) lee sedol was equipped with an equivalent cost modern digital computer. How would AlphaGo fare then? Much of the advantage of mechanical minds over humans is in their ability to leap through simple calculations with perfect accuracy while we muddle through with agonizing slowness and imprecision. The question is, why arbitrarily rob us of the use of dirt-cheap tools that can do what we are terrible at effortlessly?
And if we are going to do that, in the spirit of seeing ‘pure human ability’ or somesuch, why allow the crutch of a playing board? Without that memory enhancing device I am sure computers surpassed humans quite some time ago.
The strongest chess players, to my knowledge, are chess programs getting live assistance from humans – note that you could just as easily phrase that the other way around – not programs running solo. When that isn’t true, when in order to get the very best performance you must exclude humans as you would exclude, say, gorillas, that will be very worrying indeed. But given how far we are from that point, and the potential for human enhancement, there is some reason to hope that day will never come.
@AnatolyKarlin
Are you good at Go?
Is Go a good game?
A very probable reason for Lee playing a ko late in his third game is that chinese netizens launched on Weibo a conspiracy theory that Lee has made a secret arrangement with Google not to play any ko, because AlphaGo can’t handle them.
This conspiracy theory started when a 9 dan chinese player said on a broadcast of game 2 that AlphaGo never played a ko despite the fact it has played one in the october games against Fen Hui.
The funniest part is that AlphaGo effortlessly disengaged from Lee’s ko and played a tenuki (a move somewhere else).
In the early 1980s, when I was about 9 years old, a tochki craze swept through Soviet schools. Tochki (dots) is a simplified version of Go, played on graph paper. We had matches that went on for hours, both during and after classes, often filling both pages of an open notebook. I loved it like nothing else.
There are tochki-playing communities online, with player ratings and software players. I checked them out a few years ago. Some of the human players are shockingly good, many levels up from anything I saw as a kid, and we really did care about those games back then. The software was beatable, even by me, but that was obviously because there hasn’t been much interest in perfecting it. I assume that Go is a much more complicated game.
A Google image result showing some Tochki games.
Update – Lee won the fourth game!
A win rate of 25% means that AlphaGo’s Elo likely superiority over Lee’s current 3519 points has just plummeted from 400-450 (based on predictions market) to 191, i.e. 3710. Still higher than top player Kim Jie at 3621.
If Lee loses the next game, that Elo difference goes up to 241; if he wins, it gets reduced further to 120. Regardless, we can now say with considerable confidence that AlphaGo is peak human level but decidedly not superhuman level.
The loss yesterday to Lee and the previous game reveal that Alphago is far from perfect. It has serious flaws. It is afraid of Ko fights.It hates initiating ko fights. it collapsed under complicated ko fights like yesterday and I am sure Lee is going to exploit to the fullest in the next game. Aside from that it has far surpassed human in other aspect of the game.
You’re right, not so AlphaKo after all.
The next question is when (or if) games like Chess or Go will be completely solved. And yes I know Go has something like 10^300 possible positions, and that the entire universe converted to a Go computer would not be sufficient to hold all the positions, but who knows what future algorithms on quantum computers could possibly achieve.
Lee’s story reminds me the recent experience of US-born professor Muhammad Zakir Khan (Broward College, Florida) who was blocked by US-based ‘Epic Games’ for signing up to play one of its video games. Why? Because his name spelled like India’s top pro-Hamas Muslim cleric whom the Jewish Lobby got banned in the US, UK and Canada earlier.
UK-based Jewish think tank, ‘Gatestone’, published some of his crimes against the ‘civilized’ world on July 2, 2010. The ‘crime list’ says Indian Dr. Naik is admirer of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. He believes that terrorism is kosher against terrorist states like United States and Israel. He call for application of Shari’ah in Hindu-majority India, and death for Jewish community’s favorite minority, LGBT.
https://rehmat1.com/2016/01/19/how-a-us-professor-became-terrorist/
If you know anything about the tactics employed by Genghiz Khan and his Mongols, you know that his mounted army was employing the same tactics as played in Go games. Genghiz was the all-time greatest Go master.
Here in Poland we played “kropki” (dots). I am not sure whether it’s the same game, as the rules were different from Go: for one, we counted the captured enemy dots instead of territory, and we played sometimes on whole notebook pages. The games lasted many hours sometimes, and we started even our own “game theory”, discovering many optimal moves and strategies 🙂 good ol’ times…
A quantum computer is not a genie. It theoretically would offer a limited speedup over a limited range of problems – if one ever came to exist.
Draughts? This is a US site. Please say checkers.
Where has it been declared this is a US site ?
Let me guess: you’re a butthurt Englishman or Cacuckistani with an inferiority complex?
Ron Unz is American.
All of the bloggers (besides, apparently, Karlin) are American.
Almost all the commenters are American.
The site is, to my knowledge, hosted in America.
Unz.com is an American site. People should avoid words that are not widely understood in America.
You’re a fucking faggot.
It’s the same game. The web site where I played it for a while years ago had a Russian, a Polish and an English interface. I remember from then that it’s called Kropki in Polish.
While the performance of the computer is impressive, one must ask, who created these games? When a computer can create a game of strategy with the popularity of the ones mentioned here, then I’ll be impressed.
However, I don’t follow recent advances in AI that much; maybe such a game has been created by AI. Has it?
I think Peter Frost is Canadian.
Chess and Go were created for the purpose of entertaining humans. What if humans created a game for the purpose of beating any computers at it?
One strategy would be to increase the number of possible moves exponentially by seriously increasing the size of the field, the number of pieces and the number of kinds of pieces.
Lmao
GO is a very beautiful game.
The way I see AlphaGo (AI) Vs Lee (Human) is as long as you can equip the machine with high capacity core, memory, RAM, we can safely say that AI will eventually win any game humans have ever invented in history. Why?
It can store any games (World Championship play and moves), and recalculate its move based on probability of winning which is equipped with RAM power. The machine can calculate any random number like 208913413/23413 probability with its binary switch. But for Humans, it’s straining your memory power to calculate those weird random probability for every move, given that only 2 hours are allowed for each player.
Human brains can only store any data that their skull can accommodate whereas you keep upgrading AI power by expanding its core memory, algorithm, equation, formulas, what not? Sooner or later, any game with objective of beating the opponent or winning the game within a set of rules imposed upon a game, AI can easily out-maneuver as long as it has a set of objectives to follow.
This very idea of AI beating, outsmarting Humans is as old as Machine Vs Humans.
Humans can run. They can only run as fast as biological anatomy can equip them. However, turbo-charged trains, cars can run as fast as no human can ever dream of. Why? Are we still doing the same assembly as installing horseshoes? battery?
Nowadays cars come with all the streamlined parts to reduce friction, maximize speed, engine power, high octane gas, hitting 250mph whereas we humans evolve only as fast as Usain Bolt can achieve 30mph.
AI Vs Humans
If we limit AlphaGo capacity to 16bit, 32MB RAM, and 2 hours play time, we will see a different scenario. But as we keep upgrading the machine with all the necessary components to increase its chance or might I repeat, it’s only purpose of increasing the probability of winning, we will eventually and inevitably see in future that AI will beat any games with a set of rules.
The only question I’d like to ask is,
Can AlphaGo invent a new game like Go, Chess, Checkers in the first place, assuming AI now can beat a human?
As Lee put it better, AlphaGo can win the game, but AlphaGo can’t see the beauty of the Go game. The only purpose of AlphaGo is calculating winning probability in every move. That’s it.
Let me guess, you are an a hole. At least you are portraying the stupid American stereotype well, read the question carefully, where is this declared an American site ?
Lol
[Lee is taking a dive.
AK: Grabbing at any straw to deny technological progress sometimes does happen]
Lol, – 5371 you are displaying the best variety in sense of humour.
[Lee is taking a dive.
AK: Grabbing at any straw to deny technological progress sometimes does happen]
Lol, – 5371 love the self-deprecating humour!
How do we know that Deep Blue is not human assisted?
What human would be capable of providing assistance to beat a World Champion?
In other words, life itself.
“People should avoid words that are not widely understood in America.”
Lol, what, like words that are invariably given a frame of context, if not outright explained, and failing that a Google search can’t solve?
Come on, man, most Unz articles are written at a tenth grade level (or what constituted 10 tenth grade not that long ago).
I keep hearing people say that computers will never do what humans can do. I doubt this seriously. It’s very frightening. I would have never believed many years ago when using DOS that speech recognition would come so soon and the capabilities are speeding up. Even if Moore’s law is halved it’s still a doubling of computer power very frequently. This adds up, fast.
You folks really ought to look at this. From Dennis M. Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, “Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025] “. He goes over the trends of technology coming up and how they may play out. His report is not some wild eyed fanaticism it’s based on reasonable trends. Link.
https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025
Page 19 shows capability of the human brain and time line for human level computation.
Page 70 gives the computing power trend and around 2025 we get human level computation for $1000.
2025 is bad but notice it says”…By 2030, PC has collective computing power of a town full of human
minds…”.
The real problem is not that the machine is smart it’s that it has no empathy for humans. How does empathy work? I don’t think anyone knows. It’s hard enough to program intelligence. We know people with no empathy cause all sorts of problems. What about psychopathic super machines. It’s frightening
Even worse, what about software bugs? Let’s say in the future an AI tasked to grow corn suddenly realizes that if humans were out of the way it could really grow lots more corn. It somehow links to the net, studies humans and eventually finds a way to engineer a virus that kills all humans. It then proceeds to cover the planet with corn. It is very happy.
Ah yes the good old paperclip maximizer.
I am relatively sanguine on machine intelligence relative to Bostrom/MIRI. It is based primarily on two observations:
(1) I agree with Scott Jackisch that a great deal of intelligence is due to network effects. Moreover, the higher IQ an activity, the greater the percentage of its benefits accrue to society at large. (Think Newton: His work didn’t even make him England’s richest person. But he did help England have some of the world’s best naval artillery and thus rule the world). A superintelligence might come up with lots of neat inventions but chances are the net benefits to the world will be a great deal bigger than to it individually.
(2) So the malovelent superintelligence decides to keep its discoveries covert? Fortunately, Apollo’s Ascent shows that the further along the technological ladder you climb, the more difficult it is to make subsequent steps (so the actual rate of progress is linear, not exponential). Improving intelligence is itself a form of technology. Rather than an individual superintelligence takeoff taking over the world as a singleton I think its far more likely we will see an oligopoly of national and corporate superintelligences vying with each for global influence.
Final remarks:
Was writing article instead of watching final Lee-AlphaGo game but final score is 4:1. Reverse of what Lee had originally predicted! 😉
Anyhow 4:1 score (w/out looking into details) implies Alpha has probabilistic ~240 point higher Elo rating than Lee Sedol i.e. ~3760.
That means its likely ~140 points higher than first ranked human Ke Jie and should beat him about 70% of the time.
I had a look at go bots historic performance other day. Looks like they move up by 1 S.D. every two years or so. Treating AlphaGo as the new base, humans should be completely outclassed by computer in go by around 2020.
Oh come on Anatoly…Deepblue Go realm is not going into the superhuman realm…it is going into the super-duper-supercomputer-realm. Just another powerfull “steam shovel”. Chomsky and Turing are both right about this.
I’m not looking for a prolonged debate about this with you. Not trying to take your fun away. Just registering my dissent. Back to regularly scheduled Unz Review programming.
Am I allowed to viciously insult DeepBlue Go on Unz Review…I don’t want to be prosecuted for a hate crime by the Democratic Party.
Are their any decent “ethnic-racial” slurs that I can hurl at supercomputers…I mean really offensive ones!!!!!!!!!!!
The idea is that while computers can compute very complicated mathematical problems very quickly and without errors (which would take a human decades using papers, and the human would make so many mistakes the result would be useless), but they are not very good at holistic thinking, intuition, etc.
The question is, is it possible to enhance the abilities of a normal chess master to the level of world champion grandmaster with the help of some clever computer program? A program which, in and of itself, perhaps wouldn’t even be capable of winning a game against a reasonably capable human, but whose abilities would complement the chess master’s abilities in a way that the two together would be able to beat the world champion?
I’m not sure if that’s possible, but apparently the commenter utu was asking the question if there was a way for us to know if Deep Blue wasn’t such a human-machine combined player, rather than just a machine with no human inputs.
I’m not so sure that it is theoretically true that a quantum computer could beat AlphaGo. Theoretically, Quantum Computers would have a very limited range of applications…cryptography….factoring integers….and simulating quantum systems. Moreover, attacking classical computation problems would result in an exponential slowdown of the quantum computer. This is all standard canonical quantum computing stuff understood by the experts which I am not.
Weiqi is the most complicated and the most beautiful board game invented by China, and the world.
It tests the depth of philosophy, elegancy, creativity, and of course, watertight logic and insane amount of calculations.
On the front of logic and calculation, and elegancy as well to a large extend, machines can beat humans no doubt. It’s meaningless and unfair ask a top Olympics player to compete on weight-lifting with a bulldozer, or ask Usain Bolt to outrun a second-hand pickup truck.
In essence it is an unfair game because a human player represents he and him only, whereas this computer represents expericences and judgements of 10s of thousands or millions of historical “players” it trined its programmes with combined: it is not 1 Vs 1, but 1 Vs X.
Still, there’re plenty of ways to beat this “AlphaGo” ( it should be AlphaWeiqi instead) :
set more traps: it is just a machine that calculates the probabilities at every step – the more traps it encounters, more “confusing” hence more time it’ll need for calculations. Humans could overwelme it by deliberately missleading – Panda calls it “Jam the sucker!” ROFL –
of course, this is a double-edged swort that creates extra troubles for humans at the same time as well.
Nah, Panda’s favorate: if none of above 3 works as quickly as expected, short-circuit or unplug the sucker will ensure the ultimate and complete human victory! ROFL
BTW, AK
Sorry, AK, it is NOT Kim Jie – sounds like a fictionary Korean name, but Ke Jie – the world’s #1, a 18-year-old Han Chinese prodigy who is arguablely the most powerful player in the known world history of Weiqi so far. Lee Sedol lost to AlphaGo by 1:4, but he lost to Ke Jie by 2:8 last time.
Ke Jie’s remarks on AlphaGo Vs Lee Sedol:
after 1:0, Ke said that AlphaGo is expectedly strong and he has 60% chance winning AlphaGo.
Afer 2:0, Ke said it is shocking that Lee played the set very badly and, other top Chinese players reckon the same. but AlpagGo seems even stronger than he expected.
After 3:0, Ke said that he felt nauseating and desperated at the same time, because Lee´s defeat in this set was total, complete.
After 4:1, Ke said he is still confident of winning the machine, but not entirely so sure as before, and he is expecting the day coming soon when the machine challenges him for the ultimate fight, so he´ll have to make some preparations now for it.
Turing computational models of Human Cognitive Faculties is a perfectly reasonably research program. However, where it gets into trouble is when Turing-like computational models of the human mind-brain morphs into Functionalism.
Abstract away from the hardware…then abstract away again..BINGO:Humans are computers…computers are just smarter Humans…
I can’t help notice the similarity between functionalism in the AI field and in the Democratic Party field of race-replacing The Historic Native Born White American Majority with Chinese…Sihk…Hindu..Pakistani..and Korean legal immigrants and their US born geneline. If America is an abstract proposition Nation based only on worship of the Constitution and on worship of free-markets….well heck…Chinese-Sihk-Hindu-Korean-Pakistani legal immigrants and their US born geneline are Turing equivalent to The Historic Native Born White American Majority…So what’s the big deal with rapidly race-replacing The Historic Native Born White American Majority in Silicon Valley…and the rest of California…..America will still be America!!!!
Anatoly
I think you might find this very interesting. Apparently Human Beings..who are trained properly…can kick the shit out of supercomputers when it comes to protein folding.
A Carniege Mellon Computer Science Researcher has been tapping into the hardcore gaming community for his protein folding research. He has created a protein folding game that you can download. The human is trained to apply a few simple protein folding rules. Then, the game of protien folding commences. Fold the protien correctly and you get your name as a co-author on a scientific paper.
Racks of supercomputers+multicores+clever algorithms can’t compete with the lowly Human Protien Folder(secretaries….truck drivers…carpenters…store clerks…
For those interested in the quantum computing stuff…of which I only know itty bit…ty linear algebra qubi…tery microscopic Planck scale amount(this would be the sub-pinhead level)…honestly,quite a pathetically small amount…BQP COMPLEXITY CLASS is where all the action is in the Quantum Computing Realm.
So “it from qubits?”…To rephrase John Wheeler’s famous conjecture….
Here we go:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12190917/Google-AlphaGo-cant-beat-me-says-China-Go-grandmaster.html
The problem here is that this is not creative destruction; this is just destruction. We are losing the European aesthetic that made America a country others desire.
Chinese-Sihk-Hindu-Korean-Pakistani for the most part don’t have art anyone wants to look at; they don’t have literature anyone wants to read; they don’t have music anyone wants to listen to; they don’t create games anyone wants to play; and they don’t create societies to which anyone wants to move. European cultural mores are largely what the world copies.
We set aside parks and wilderness areas to preserve what they hold in deference to the past and future. We might do well to preserve something of “The Historic Native Born White American Majority” for similar reasons.
bomag
The problem with your post is that it is still stuck in the Functionalist Philosophy Realm.
What we are losing is the Blood-Guts-Geneline-Native Born European stock that made America desirable to Blood-Guts-Geneline-Native Born White American-European Stock Type. And this is the only phenotype that I care about.
We are a different phenotype…We are a different RACIAL TYPE(which is why we are being singled out for demographic extermination by the various legal nonwhite Fifth Columns on Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space)
Back to supercomputer Go gammers….they are a different TYPE. Functionalism confuses different Types. Its a Type mistake.
Love it, when Nationalist argues over which phenotype is the best. hahah
Here’s the scenario if you guys like to peak into the future.
There’re tons of those Beings in the future controlling over mere mortals like Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Africans, you name it.
Those Beings do not belong to a particular phenotype like Whites, Asians, etc etc etc.
Those Beings outclass any races in any imaginable ways. While mere mortals like us are arguing over: White trashing Blacks, Blacks defending their value, who’s who the best phenotype.
However, those Beings DNA will be very similar to us Homo Sapien. The only difference is nobody can claim who belong to whose race.
If you still can’t figure out why, here’s the very simple version of it.
There are thousands of different types of fish. Some are huge, some are gigantic, some are small. They fight for each other. Sharks think they are the best of the best in fish type, considering living in waters. Whales think they are the most gigantic phenotype you can ever dream of. Minnows think they live in their own bubble. Over millions of evolution, we see terrestrial animals; Lions think they are the kings of the jungle. Bloodhounds think they are the best hunters.
Fast forward, Orangutans think they are the most mobile animals. Their prehensile limbs and mobile legs give them the facility. Fast forward, Neanderthals think they were the Emperor of the world. They can kill any species, burn them, eat them, as they wish.
If we extract DNA from those species in several evolutionary period, we will surprisingly see that even a tiny minnow has DNA codon for actin structures which make up the cellular cytoskeleton in the body, is very similar to our own DNA codon in Humans.
So Sharks must be thinking, Since I’m the most strong, king of the ocean, and possess very likable phenotype you can ever imagine of, I will contribute much to the world, showing the condescending attitude towards a tiny minnow while we Humans will be laughing our ass off.
Killing as we wish, making their bones as museum display, and even putting them into zoo for display pleasure.
And you go figure.
Love it.
Kills all human, and cover the planet with corn. Yea.
If that kind of thinking, or logic exist in AI, we are surely doomed. Maybe it’s called bug?
In the meantime, I want you to read Alan Turings’ orginal paper:Can Computers Think….
And everybody else read Kirkpatrick Sale’s(Thomas Pynchons’s Cornell buddy) book on the Luddites.
Do you think I haven’t read it?
Most immigrants seem to move to areas with lots of immigrants and immigrant societies, rather than whiter areas like West Virginia, Maine, Idaho, etc.
Most immigrants seem to move to areas with lots of immigrants and immigrant societies, rather than whiter areas like West Virginia, Maine, Idaho, etc.
So the high IQ discussion of Weiqi and artificial intelligence here has been successfully derailed by the 3-horse competition of Dumb, Dumber & the Dumbest?
OKE, all of you 3 draw even @ score of 83.5, happy now? ROFL!
So you don’t think computers can be creative? Well a quote from an earlier post,”…By 2030, PC has collective computing power of a town full of human
minds…”. So if you have the equivalent of the population of Atlanta, Ga. all with above 100 IQ making various attempts at a problem each varying their methods a little is this creativity? Does it matter if a problem is solved what it’s called? Are Humans methods of creativity any different?
Notice Rdm has noticed how small the differences in Human population genetics are and seems to say people are fools to notice differences in behavior when the genetic difference is so small. Well you can get a house for almost free in Detroit. Why don’t you move there and get you a free house? One person mentioned Pakistan. I bet you could purchase land there for a song. We have solar power now at reasonable prices. Why not move there?
Weiqi is the last defence of human honour in front of machines in terms of games, cuz it is probably the only one left, out of 6,000+ human games, that has not been beaten by machines yet : Lee Sedol lost to AlphaGo, but Lee doesn’t represent the top of humans’current capability, Ke Jie does.
Weiqi is probably the most complicated game human have ever invented so far, largely because its complexity/possible moves are more than the number of atoms in the entire universe ( so Weiqi is far far far far far… more complicated than simple Chess). Precisely because of this, “raw” horsepower of calculation is a major part of the game.
Question about the “raw” horsepower:
It is impossible for a human to compete with AlphaGo on computational speed & the corresponding accuracy. A top human player usually mind-calculates 4 or 5 steps ahead before each move, whereas meantime AlphaGo “makes N copy” of itself and each copy calculates say 10,000 steps for each possibilities till the end, then choose the one strategy with the best probability before making its counter move. .. it’s like no human mathematician can compete on speed of weather forecasting variances with a supercomputer.
In this sense it’s not One HumanVs AlphaGo, but One Human Vs 10s of thousands or millions of “AlphaGos” depending on the complexity of a game.
So for the “raw” horsepower, humans have no chance whatsoever.
Question about the speed of progress:
An average human professional Weiqi player could have time to play 3 games daily, whereas AlphaGo can play 1 million per day. A human top player can remember thousands of games in the history to draw lessons from, whereas AlphaGo has all 30 million+ top history games in its database to draw from choosing the most relevent probabbility with zero error rate in about 0.02 second (assuming no one pulls the plug meantime, LOL).
panda believes that if Ke Jie, the #1 human player, goes against Alpha now, he might have 60% chance of winning, but the situation could be reversed if it will be slightly later.
So human stands no chance to compete on the speed of progress.
Question on the creativity:
To say that AlphaGo/machine is not creative is kidding ourselves. Of course it is! In the second game of AlphaGo Vs South Korea’s Lee Sedol, AlphaGo made 1 move that sent many of top Chinese players into tears of shock+joy, because this move was in the full creative spirit of the late “Saint of Weiqi” Wu Qing Yuan, the most powerful player ever existed(perhaps even more than the current world’s #1 Ke Jie), that currently no one player in the world has balls to move like that. Seeing that move was like see Wu Qing Yuan back again.
It seems that AlphaGo could “sense” some degrees of beauty/elegance now!
AlphaGo could “sense” the what is “bigger game” definitely!
Humans seem lossing our edges on all fronts in an alarming speed .
However, Panda sees that there is a crucial difference btw AlphaGo’s creativity and Human creativity —->
The essence and nature of human creativity is, more often than not, from Zero to One, from non-existence to existence; whereas AlphaGo’s creativity is from millions of Ones to choosing the One with higher/better probability, meaning from existence to existence!
It is no surprise that a human brains is still far far far far…more complex evolutionary machine than AlphaGo brain/database, which is after all just a simple imitation (set by computer programmers’ parametres) of several limited simple functions within human’s complex brain mechanism.
The advancement of AlphaGo can force pushing the creativity of world’s top players to a new height( for that matter also pushing forward deeper research of human brain science), because in order to beat AlphaGo the speed, the accuracy of the calculations and memory of old school lessons become much less crucial than otherwise. Top players must be forced to breakthrough the barriers of creativity again and again to shock AlphaGo’s 30 million-plus- historical-sets database…
…nonetheless, if 0 to 1 type creativity can not be found now, Panda thinks the old-school creativity could still be applied to beat AlphaGo for the time being: false moves to jam the sucker’s computational time in order to force it making incomplete calculations hence imperfect move/s. ROFL!
What a good Party member. You are so politically correct that you now can’t tell the difference between minnows and humans. Your handlers must be very proud.
Everybody notices and uses phenotypic differences. In your case, White people need to be noticed and discriminated against so you can gain status within your cell.
As proud as your peanut brain can spew out this ridiculous comment here.
Football game was invented in China. Americans don’t understand the difference between Soccer and Football. Americans think (I might need to emphasize here, the White Americans), that their football is the most globally recognized in the world. If you think about it, their so-called football was played by a bunch of guys, catching and grabbing oblong-shaped balls by their hands and never used their foot per se. That’s what they called football.
Whereas the actual football game, crazed throughout the Europe was invented in China. Yeah, talk about European invented games and no one wants to copy.
I don’t want to go into details about Golf since it’s still controversial in origin.
Let alone Cricket game enjoyed by one of the most populous countries in the world.
Now I’m not lionizing what China has achieved in the past. The point I want to make is, we are evolving either we like it or not. Along those evolutionary tracts, several branches or offshoot of evolutionary beings must have fight for their survival, and see the world through their own lens. Their pride, their arrogance, their stupidity, and such. That’s why I put you into the shoes of Sharks, Whales, Minnows or Lion, Tiger, Dog, or Neanderthals. Future do not belong to you or a particular race. As many as millions of differences are there between those species, they do exist as offshoot beings or a stepping stone in the evolutionary tract.
Of course, I’m one of them. I feel proud of my ancestors. I take pride in my role in society. I can see you feel proud of your ancestors too. But your arrogance and stupidity took over your logic and you feel immensely proud of your ancestors and start trashing and belittling other achievement. Over time, those kinds of thought become your morning rituals and your daily dose of existence.
While I laugh my ass off, seeing this stupidity is like Whales freely swimming in the tank full of water and thinking “I’m the most desired phenotype in the world.”
Just ignore those laughable ignorants.
BTW as we’re at football, even though Golf is still contravertial, Polo was first invented in China’s Tang Dynasty for sure, which was documented and painted in details.
About games —>
the Chinese invented world’s all-time most popular game: card games;
perhaps also world’s first drinking game as China invented brandy and whiskey -> Una más? ROFL
World-famous board games invented by China like Checkers, Chess ( still contravertial due to Anglo’s current tight control of world-wide scholarly influences and their past glory of holding British Raj. Called “Xiangqi” in China), and Weiqi are the ones Panda likes the most and plays the most. LoL
Back to AlphaGo:
Artificial intelligence has a crutial weakness compared to humans due to its very definition –> they can not overcome desinger’s initial artificial parameters.
This has a wide implications ROFL:
for example, AlphaGo can (almost) never win Team Panda (of 3p) on a Mahjong table. LMAO!
Another example, AlphaGo would likely always loss to Team Panda (of more than 2p) on a Blackjack table. ROFL
etc.
This is simply because humans can team up together cheating the games, whereas by its parameters AlpahGo/machines can not.
Lee Sedol went to all 5 games against AlphaGo with his daughter.
He won the 4th game resolutely.
His daughter was reported sitting next to the electric plug at the 4th game…
LMAO
It is not about being the most desired phenotype in the world, it is about being the most desired whale type; a judgement made all time. Life is about choosing with whom to associate in our efforts to better ourselves; and it matters very much who propagates, whether you admit it or not.
In the first line of your reply you announced your judgement that you are more intelligent than others, same as the whale announcing that he is the most desired phenotype. That in the long run we are all dead, or we will be surpassed by other beings, is orthogonal to what is being discussed.
That ‘all men are created equal” is a simplifying assumption adopted to deflect from having to confront some thornier issues. It is not really true.
I noted that in the Pantheon of culture, some contribute more than others. It is not necessarily an observation that trashes others. I’m pointing out that people vote with their feet and who they are voting for. I’m sure the Pakistanis are wonderful people, but I don’t see too many people copying how they do things.
lecturing Americans about how shitty they are in broken English, I think you shouldn’t accuse others of arrogance.
and speaking of logic, there is no logic in this identity stuff you peddle here, just feelz and spin. It’s what crowd you’re in with.
The sooner you understand that, the sooner you’ll become a worthy member of the human race rather than a resentful 3rd worlder.
citation needed. not that it was invented in China, but that “the Europe” got it from there and nowhere else, or didn’t come up with it on her own (there are only so many ways to kick a ball across a lawn.)
The West has been the most consistent in acknowledging other cultures’ contributions. You’re in “we wuz kangs ‘n sheeit” territory here and the cause is your ethnic/racial resentment, for whatever reason.