Hacker News Reader

Comment by jpleyden98 | Hacker News Reader

> Sure, but that instance of AlphaGo is still dependent on its training, its intelligence, so it is a question of is that the best and only way to win a game of Go.

If this were true then it would be impossible for these models to ever exceed the top human level as there would exist no training data that allows them to exceed the top human level.

However, despite there being no training data on ability to beat the top humans these models have achieved it.

> this is why it is important for humans to always have an intimate connection with the code, math, science, chess etc for progress to continue.

This is just you wanting to remain relevant rather than actually based on evidence.

View on HN

> If this were true then it would be impossible for these models to ever exceed the top human level as there would exist no training data that allows them to exceed the top human level.

Of course AI exceeds humans at chess, I never denied that. I am saying because chess is primarily a human vs human game, humans will always be learning and playing chess, their games will add to the chess knowledge base, AI also adds to this knowledge base. But programming is not primarily a human vs human activity so there is a risk programmers will forget how to code and all software will be stuck in 2022 because of the training data, this stifles innovation.

> I am saying because chess is primarily a human vs human game, humans will always be learning and playing chess, their games will add to the chess knowledge base

I guess I'm contesting that idea you are putting forward that the data from the games these humans are playing, which are at a vastly lower level that the top AIs are meaningfully important for helping the AIs to improve at the top level.

Would more people learning their times tables be helpful for top mathematicians in their fields to get better at the frontier of maths? Probably not right. Same applies here.

Would AIs advance at the same rate for the top level of chess in a world where humans completely stopped playing chess vs the world we have today. I would say they would as the human level data is of limited value to the frontier which is dominated by AI and AI game data, you are claiming that it does.

> But programming is not primarily a human vs human activity so there is a risk programmers will forget how to code and all software will be stuck in 2022 because of the training data, this stifles innovation.

Does it? Or will AI be able to run its own experiments and find better/more efficient abstractions that propagate because they are better and this will find its way into training data for future AI.

> I guess I'm contesting that idea you are putting forward that the data from the games these humans are playing, which are at a vastly lower level that the top AIs are meaningfully important for helping the AIs to improve at the top level.

I never said human games are meaningfully important for training AI. Human games are still important for the advancement of chess, maybe Magnus Carlson can learn from games between two Super AIs but most humans still learn from games by humans, Grandmasters are continuously developing the opening, middle-game and end-game systems, adding to the chess knowledge base. Every serious chess player still reviews and study games by prominent Grandmasters, every serious chess player documents their own games, writing down every move. All rated games are recorded and added to the chess database that every player can review and study.

>Does it? Or will AI be able to run its own experiments and find better/more efficient abstractions...

Only if it is in the training data.

> Human games are still important for the advancement of chess

Are they? Why?

For a human vs human game sure but at the very top level? No of course not because it's all done by AI.

> Only if it is in the training data.

This is trivially not true, as how has AI managed to become better than humans if the knowledge of how to do so never existed in the training data.

We are well past AI can't do X unless X is in the training data. If your claim were true then AI could never surpass human expertise in any field because by definition all the available training data will at best be at the current human frontier and not beyond.

> For a human vs human game sure but at the very top level? No of course not because it's all done by AI.

Glad that you finally agree,this is what I was saying the whole time.

> This is trivially not true, as how has AI managed to become better than humans if the knowledge of how to do so never existed in the training data.

AI can do more work, faster, AI it only needs sufficient compute and data. But that does not mean it is more intelligent than humans, it still uses the same code, algorithms, frameworks, protocols etc etc that are in the training data, sourced from human open source code on the web.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com