It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: buddha
So if we ever fight machines.
we will lose!
originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: neoholographic
Winning at Go?
It requires one to understand the culture from which it comes.
Everyone knows this. The first people that will tell you this are those in business, because they thought they were playing one game (Chess) and had to abruptly adapt to the fact that, when it came to the Chinese, they were playing another (Go).
It's not about how complicated it is, it's about another IQ, what has become known as EQ, or something like Emotional Intelligence, one needs social savvy to suss out Go.
A Google computer's stunning 3-0 victory in a Man-vs-Machine face-off over the ultimate board game highlights the need to keep Artificial Intelligence under human control, experts said Saturday.
The partly self-taught AlphaGo programme's defeat of Go grandmaster Lee Se-Dol showed AI was progressing faster than widely thought, they said -- a highly symbolic moment in humanity's quest to create smart machines.
And while AI plays a key role in building a better, safer world, some fear the fast pace of development could finally leave humans outwitted by our own inventions.
AlphaGo's triumph "shows that the methods we do have are even more powerful than we first thought," said AI expert Stuart Russell of the University of California's Berkeley Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences department.
"The fact that AI methods are progressing much faster than expected makes the question of the long-term outcome more urgent," he told AFP by email.
"It will be necessary to develop an entirely new discipline of research in order to ensure that increasingly powerful AI systems remain completely under human control... there is a lot of work to do."
originally posted by: Aedaeum
a reply to: neoholographic
I think what's far more significant about this than AI, is the fact that we've reached the cap of human ingenuity.
originally posted by: leolady
a reply to: neoholographic
The video stated that the computer was programmed to only look at the "value" moves, instead of all possible moves because it takes too long for a computer to look at all of them. & this has been the hold up for some time now on giving a computer the capability of beating the game GO... having a computer fast enough to look at all the moves and then making a decision on the best move or strategy. So NO... the computer in my opinion didn't think on its own, it was programmed on what to think.
For example : It was given a multiple choice list of the most valuable moves to go with in each scenario based on what a PRO player would of done.
Winning at Go?
It requires one to understand the culture from which it comes.
No it doesn't.
Mr. Lai's theories are not universally embraced by China experts. For starters, some say, comparing national strategic thought to popular sports and games is an over-simplification—and at any rate, the Chinese version of chess has lots of adherents in China, too.
Furthermore, despite the ancient roots of Chinese military thinkers such as Sun Tzu, it's far from clear that Chinese leaders over the millennia, especially Communist Chinese leaders, have followed a single, broad strategy at all, let alone the one sketched by the board game.
"Go is a very useful device for analyzing Chinese strategy, but let's not overdo it," says James Holmes, an expert on Chinese strategy and professor at the Naval War College.
Though he agrees that Go helps to describe the strategic showdown between China and the U.S. in East Asia, he says that "we have to be extremely cautious about drawing a straight line from theory to the actions of real people in the real world."
He notes that China's "amateurish" diplomatic blunders in recent years, including bullying neighbors and trying to push other navies out of international waters, represent a departure from the patient, subtle tenets of Go.
No talk of emotional intelligence whatsoever.
It's logic.
originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: pl3bscheese
I meant to refer to anyone from outside the culture that might be trying to program a computer to beat, say, Lee Sedol at Go. That would require that objectivity to understand that one needed to not try to approach a win from the standpoint of chess.