AI program beats human 3-0 at ancient Chinese game GO - thoughts?

#3
It's just information and it's processing, Roberta. That's not consciousness. As E Flowers says.... and if it lost would it get angry ? Of course it could be programmed to get angry and so on and so on into infinity but it still would only be a robot. When it came to the end of it's life and was programmed to accept and integrate it's death, would it start reporting seeing dead machines in the corner of the room that have come to take it away ?
 
#5
post: 87851, member: 10"]Has anyone suggested it is conscious or that that was their goal? I don't think so. It's quite an impressive feat for what it did set out to do. Thanks for the link![/QUOTE]

I'll bet you love that, Arouet (tell me if I'm wrong). The "impressive feat ! " ...... I suspect it thrills you that there might be a chance that it could demonstrate that we actually are nothing but biological robots ?
 
Last edited:
#6
post: 87851, member: 10"]Has anyone suggested it is conscious or that that was their goal? I don't think so. It's quite an impressive feat for what it did set out to do. Thanks for the link!
I'll bet you love that, Arouet (tell me if I'm wrong). The "impressive feat ! " ...... I suspect it thrills you that there might be a chance that it could demonstrate that we actually are nothing but biological robots ?[/QUOTE]

Man, Tim.. stop it. Arouet appreciated the link and you just denied it from the get-go. What if conscious AI is a thing in your lifetime? What would you do then? He just appreciated an article for its entirety and you couldn't even differentiate between It's and Its... That AI might be more "concious" than you are.
 
#7
What if conscious AI is a thing in your lifetime? What would you do then? He just appreciated an article for its entirety and you couldn't even differentiate between It's and Its... That AI might be more "concious" than you are.
If conscious AI becomes a 'thing in your lifetime', then Tim and I will have been wrong, along with many others. But achieving this would provide materialists with an interesting dilemma, they'd have to have managed to produce a miracle. :)
 
#8
Man, Tim.. stop it. Arouet appreciated the link and you just denied it from the get-go. What if conscious AI is a thing in your lifetime? What would you do then? He just appreciated an article for its entirety and you couldn't even differentiate between It's and Its... That AI might be more "concious" than you are.
Are you Arouet's bodyguard? It seems that you defend him often when the conversation has nothing to do with you. I am sure that he is a big boy, you should let him formulate his own rebuttals.
 
#9
I play a bit of Go, so I've been watching the progress of AlphaGo with some interest. I have to say that I think Lee Sedol lost for reasons quite unconnected with intelligence.

After AlphaGo beat the European Champion 5-0, professionals analysed the game and came to the conclusion that although the AI was good, it was only about a middling ranked professional level and should be no match for the World Champion.

I think this sense of hubris contributed to Lee Sedol's first defeat when he played aggressively, got an early lead, but underestimated his opponent and eventually lost by a small margin. In the second game, meanwhile, Lee Sedol was too cautious.

Then, of course, there's the pressure. This has had worldwide coverage on a much bigger scale than Go is used to.

It's interesting to note that, once he'd lost the series and the pressure was off, Lee Sedol won the next game so it currently stands at 3-1. At the risk of sounding like I'm making excuses, I wonder if the series had been carried out less publicly, maybe Lee Sedol would've played better.
 
#10
I play a bit of Go, so I've been watching the progress of AlphaGo with some interest. I have to say that I think Lee Sedol lost for reasons quite unconnected with intelligence.

After AlphaGo beat the European Champion 5-0, professionals analysed the game and came to the conclusion that although the AI was good, it was only about a middling ranked professional level and should be no match for the World Champion.

I think this sense of hubris contributed to Lee Sedol's first defeat when he played aggressively, got an early lead, but underestimated his opponent and eventually lost by a small margin. In the second game, meanwhile, Lee Sedol was too cautious.

Then, of course, there's the pressure. This has had worldwide coverage on a much bigger scale than Go is used to.

It's interesting to note that, once he'd lost the series and the pressure was off, Lee Sedol won the next game so it currently stands at 3-1. At the risk of sounding like I'm making excuses, I wonder if the series had been carried out less publicly, maybe Lee Sedol would've played better.

Apparently the game made moves in the match it lost that a pro would never make, and did not deviate away from moves it's programmed to do. So apparently the 'AI' term is misleading.
 
#11
I'll bet you love that, Arouet (tell me if I'm wrong). The "impressive feat ! " ...... I suspect it thrills you that there might be a chance that it could demonstrate that we actually are nothing but biological robots ?
Man, Tim.. stop it. Arouet appreciated the link and you just denied it from the get-go. What if conscious AI is a thing in your lifetime? What would you do then? He just appreciated an article for its entirety and you couldn't even differentiate between It's and Its... That AI might be more "concious" than you are.[/QUOTE]

Travis said > "Man, Tim..stop it."

Thanks for the advice, old chap (or young chap) but unless you have become the moderator please keep it to yourself

Travis said > " Arouet appreciated the link and you just denied it from the get-go."

I didn't deny anything. I responded to Arouet's post the way I always have (from a proponents point of view). Arouet has me on ignore, so don't you worry your head about it. It wasn't rude was it ?

Travis said > " That AI might be more "concious" than you are"

Now that is rude, Travis but you know what, I can take it and I'm not even going to growl at you.
 
#12
I play a bit of Go, so I've been watching the progress of AlphaGo with some interest. I have to say that I think Lee Sedol lost for reasons quite unconnected with intelligence.

After AlphaGo beat the European Champion 5-0, professionals analysed the game and came to the conclusion that although the AI was good, it was only about a middling ranked professional level and should be no match for the World Champion.

I think this sense of hubris contributed to Lee Sedol's first defeat when he played aggressively, got an early lead, but underestimated his opponent and eventually lost by a small margin. In the second game, meanwhile, Lee Sedol was too cautious.

Then, of course, there's the pressure. This has had worldwide coverage on a much bigger scale than Go is used to.

It's interesting to note that, once he'd lost the series and the pressure was off, Lee Sedol won the next game so it currently stands at 3-1. At the risk of sounding like I'm making excuses, I wonder if the series had been carried out less publicly, maybe Lee Sedol would've played better.
I am very interested in that, because not knowing anything about GO (someone once tried to teach me about 40 years ago) I couldn't evaluate this at all. Certainly AI and hype are no strangers to each other!

Arouet, Tim and Travis, please try and shake hands (so to speak). We all come to this from a different perspective, and it is best to just accept that.
What if conscious AI is a thing in your lifetime?
One thing is sure, I think, if conscious AI does come about, it won't just be solely because of a better computer or program.
Does it "experience" the joy of winning?
E.Flowers really pinned the problem - making a conscious AI absolutely requires a solution to that problem - which is, of course, the Hard Problem!

David
 
#14
I am very interested in that, because not knowing anything about GO (someone once tried to teach me about 40 years ago) I couldn't evaluate this at all. Certainly AI and hype are no strangers to each other!

Arouet, Tim and Travis, please try and shake hands (so to speak). We all come to this from a different perspective, and it is best to just accept that.


One thing is sure, I think, if conscious AI does come about, it won't just be solely because of a better computer or program.

E.Flowers really pinned the problem - making a conscious AI absolutely requires a solution to that problem - which is, of course, the Hard Problem!

David

You have good knowledge of AI don't you David? Is this a significant step forward in your opinion for AI?
 
#16
I still don't understand how combining two or more things that on their own are not conscious, yet when combined, are thought to spontaneously achieve consciousness?
This is a bit off topic for this thread, but taking an Integrated Information Theory approach, the things are never individually conscious, but rather, it is the system (ie: the interaction between the two things) that is conscious. Now. these non concious things already have the properties that. when they interact in a certain way (ie: integrate information) they have a corresponding experience. In that sense, IIT holds consciousness as a fundamental property, even if it is not always active. The experience exists not within each individual part and is therefore irreducible to the system.

This thread has nothing to do with consciousness though, so if we want to continue this discussion we should probably take it to another thread.
 
#17
Now. these non concious things already have the properties that. when they interact in a certain way (ie: integrate information) they have a corresponding experience
They have a corresponding "experience"

Arouet (even though you are ignoring me which you are perfectly entitled to do) I wasn't a member of this forum until two/three years ago (approx.) I have, however looked back through your "thousands" (is it ? ) of posts on the previous forum. You haven't moved more than a couple of inches.

You've been presented with "good evidence" over and over again but you are still coming at the forum with a desire (IMO)
to support theories that urge us to believe we have no soul. Would you not find more satisfaction communicating with people of a like minded opinion ?
 
Last edited:
#18
This is a bit off topic for this thread, but taking an Integrated Information Theory approach, the things are never individually conscious, but rather, it is the system (ie: the interaction between the two things) that is conscious. Now. these non concious things already have the properties that. when they interact in a certain way (ie: integrate information) they have a corresponding experience. In that sense, IIT holds consciousness as a fundamental property, even if it is not always active. The experience exists not within each individual part and is therefore irreducible to the system.

This thread has nothing to do with consciousness though, so if we want to continue this discussion we should probably take it to another thread.
Ok, point taken Arouet. Then my "view on this" is that it has demonstrated some very clever human problem solving but nothing beyond that. IMHO.
 
Top