[HN Gopher] How to Become a Centaur (2018)
___________________________________________________________________
How to Become a Centaur (2018)
Author : ArtWomb
Score : 39 points
Date : 2020-01-27 14:16 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (jods.mitpress.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (jods.mitpress.mit.edu)
| catern wrote:
| Unfortunately for the article's point, despite a brief moment of
| viability, even human+computer chess teams are now far outclassed
| by computers alone.
| ggggtez wrote:
| Basically my interpretation.
|
| The key piece missing in chess was how to know what positions
| were _worth searching_ with a computer. A human had that
| intuition, and so a 'centaur' could be better. But that hiccup
| was solved by AlphaGo, using the expectation neural network.
|
| About the only thing left for humans to do is deciding _which_
| problems to try to solve.
| falcolas wrote:
| IIRC, that's because computers finally became capable of
| achieving 100% depth inspection of the possibilities; of
| finding the answer to the game itself. If you can answer the
| game, you don't need humans to lead your seeking of a partial
| answer to the game.
|
| For games like Go, where computers are not yet capable of
| viewing the full depth of the possibility tree, I imagine that
| human+computer is still a viable strategy.
| thenewnewguy wrote:
| Not even close, at least with chess. Chess games expand too
| rapidly that even with tricks to catch duplicates and discard
| obviously bad states and whatnot we're nowhere close to "100%
| depth inspection".
| ggggtez wrote:
| You aren't following AI research, clearly.
|
| The top Go player in the world retired saying that he thought
| he was almost perfect, but then a "superior being" showed him
| he wasn't even close. I doubt there is a human on the planet
| that can improve the strength of the best AI at Go.
|
| Perfect solutions to games is a 40 year old approach. It's
| something you learn in school, so you can quickly see that
| brute-force searching is not feasible on even small problem.
| bradknowles wrote:
| MCTS isn't doing full width search. Not by a longshot.
|
| What it's doing is using the computer's ability to randomly
| test various lines of inquiry many, many times faster than
| a human being can, and then use statistical methods to help
| rule out the lines that cannot produce anything of value.
|
| That's why it's Monte Carlo Tree Search.
|
| That said, any sufficiently advanced technology is
| indistinguishable from magic [0], and with modern Machine
| Learning techniques we are getting closer to crossing the
| line over to "magic" in certain fields, such as Chess.
|
| [0] Clarke's Third Law, see
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
| panopticon wrote:
| I don't think they were arguing about search breadth. I
| think they were arguing that Go AI was already formidable
| in spite of GP's odd claim that search breadth/depth is
| the reason why. Chess AI like AlphaZero aren't even close
| to 100% search breadth/depth but achieve startling
| superiority.
| Jon_Lowtek wrote:
| How to become a centaur (abridged):
|
| "the human chooses the questions, in the form of setting goals
| and constraints -- while the AI generates answers, usually
| showing multiple possibilities at once, and in real-time to the
| humans' questions. But it's not just a one-way conversation: the
| human can then respond to the AI's answers, by asking deeper
| questions, picking and combining answers, and guiding the AI
| using human intuition."
|
| Example:
|
| "In 2016, Zhu et al created a painting tool where you draw in the
| rough outlines, and an AI photo-realistically fills in the gaps.
| The human and the AI have an artistic conversation through
| pictures. The human can draw some green lines on the bottom, and
| the AI replies with several possible photo-realistic grassy
| fields to choose from. Then, the human can draw a black triangle
| above that, and the AI replies with several pictures of a
| mountain behind a grassy field. Through this push and pull
| between human & machine, art is made."
| cm2012 wrote:
| Most online advertising professionals are centaurs.
|
| Take FB ads. The best way to use it is to take full advantage of
| FB's AI - set a digital conversion event, and tell it to optimize
| for it. It will then paperclip optimize towards that.
|
| The marketers job is to give the right conversion event +
| creative for the fb algorithm to do its job best.
| infinity0 wrote:
| The title is like the opposite of clickbait & would have been
| better named "AI's forgotten cousin, IA: Intelligence
| Augmentation"
|
| > At first, Garry wasn't surprised when a human grandmaster with
| a weak laptop could beat a world-class supercomputer. But what
| stunned Garry was who won at the end of the tournament -- not a
| human grandmaster with a powerful computer, but rather, a team of
| two amateur humans and three weak computers! The three computers
| were running three different chess-playing AIs, and when they
| disagreed on the next move, the humans "coached" the computers to
| investigate those moves further.
|
| > [..]
|
| > When you create a Human+AI team, the hard part isn't the "AI".
| It isn't even the "Human".
|
| > It's the "+".
| oddevan wrote:
| I don't know; I clicked hoping for some step-by-step
| instructions on giving myself a more horse-like body. 0/10,
| article did not deliver.
| awinter-py wrote:
| brick + pencil is not a bad metaphor for a screen keyboard
| Animats wrote:
| _" We hoped for a bicycle for the mind; we got a Laz-y-Boy
| recliner for the mind."_
|
| Best line I've heard this month.
| egypturnash wrote:
| Shit, I've been calling myself a "cyborg artist" for like a
| decade; no need for artificial intelligence when I can just learn
| how to tell Adobe Illustrator how to do the repetitive parts of
| my work and concentrate on the fun parts.
| Afton wrote:
| "That's why Doug tied that brick to a pencil -- to prove a point.
| Of all the tools we've created to augment our intelligence,
| writing may be the most important. But when he "de-augmented" the
| pencil, by tying a brick to it, it became much, much harder to
| even write a single word. And when you make it hard to do the
| low-level parts of writing, it becomes near impossible to do the
| higher-level parts of writing: organizing your thoughts,
| exploring new ideas and expressions, cutting it all down to
| what's essential. That was Doug's message: a tool doesn't "just"
| make something easier -- it allows for new, previously-impossible
| ways of thinking, of living, of being."
|
| Hah. I injured my hand a couple of years ago, and had to type
| with one hand for a couple of months. I could code review, I
| could participate in meetings, I could identify the source of a
| bug. But I could not write any but the simplest code. I was
| mystified. I could write emails and to some extent documents
| (typing of course slowed down a lot). But I became basically
| incapable of writing code. Using too much brain power on the
| physical act makes you have less left over for the CONTENT. Cool
| to see that this problem was understood much earlier.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-01-27 23:00 UTC)