Imagine what AI, in different fields, means for humanity if it has so much to teach us, just by being able to "think" differently. I sure hope that one day they start writing philosophy and, doing so, potentially legitimize everything that currently makes humans unique and extraordinary.
(also during the actual game with more details, but I can not find the exact time again). Edit : can not find game3 commentary but during game 4 he is coming back to it again with interesting details as for why this is a great opportunity to inspire human players : https://youtu.be/yCALyQRN3hw?t=7097
Basically, once in ancient Japan and more recently a Chinese origin player in Japan, both incredibly strong players, surprised everyone with never before seen moves that subsequently where integrated in modern game theory. The hope is that the same could happen here.
Dolphins are about as intelligent as us, too. Are dolphins amoral? Do they delegitimize Beethoven, Tesla, Gödel, Einstein, and da Vinci?
If we invented dolphins, and they began to replace and displace us, then maybe? I don't think it is about the intelligence, but in how we use it of course. Dolphins don't really have any control of my life or those around me.
That sounded a lot more paranoid than I meant, I actually agree with what I think you are saying
How are you making this comparison?
/s
http://www.deepseanews.com/2013/02/10-reasons-why-dolphins-a...
While it's somewhat news to me, I'm very glad to hear we've moved past that.
I have no reason to doubt that quantitatively we have made some progress - although Pinker's arguments are most definitely not universally accepted in the scientific community.
That's quite an accomplishment.
I hope your reductionist explanation is not accurate because it would imply that we are already so highly conditioned to machines and to AI that this match is thought to be no different from a match between two humans.
Q: We heard there's now an anti-Lee Sedol website in Korea?
A: I don't even have time for my fans. I don't care about haters. ("나를 좋아하는 팬들에게도 신경을 못 쓰는데 그들에겐 당연히 신경 끈다.")
Or, writing from the point of view of our mechanical successors to this world, for helping to advance a highly ethical field that could exterminate that genocidaly murderous evolutionary abomination that was the human race. Who incidentally thought they were extraordinary but couldn't even play Go.
And for a game that was thought to be many decades away in terms of computer capabilities, this probably should be a time to think of the possible consequences of AI improvement and take a close look at it.
That line of reasoning would be worth a laugh, if it wasn't so widespread in the general population.
>Both have to do with right and wrong, but amoral means having no sense of either
Well that's true then! A nice quote is from Feynman in regards to scientific research.
"To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell. — Richard Feynman "
We really have no idea yet how this AI research will play out.
I don't quite like the line "Delegitimize all that makes people unique and special" But that's my only real disagreement.
You're treating Lee Seedol as if he is a fixed dataset to be trained on. Why can't he also be a "NN" who can also "refine" his AI[0] and thus be hearder for Alpha Go to compete with?
You're putting too much faith in the machine and dropping the person, that might not be completely fair.
[0] Albeit not artificial in this case.
If you care about being unique and extraordinary more than about reason, knowledge, truth, the observable reality, and the search for what it really means to be sentient, then and only then you may call AI "amoral".
Also, you are being racist against artificial sentient beings, and being racist is hopefully not what makes humans extraordinary.