Young Korean pro Kim Eunji banned for 1 year for AI cheating

[Bill Spight]

Cultural history and etiquette has nothing to do with cheating.

If you don't see the relationship here, I guess I just have to agree to disagree. I am not alone in the standard I hold for professionals - Yeonwoo, for example, also advocated that Kim Eunji not be pro anymore (as well as numerous folks in the comments of her video on this topic). Anyway, it's become apparent to me that this is not a universal viewpoint - at least with folks here on L19. Maybe it's a difference in exposure to go culture in the West. Not really sure.

Ruth Benedict pointed out in one of her books that growing up means different things in different cultures. Often there are discontinuities between stages. For instance, in the U.S. children are not supposed to drink alcohol, but that's not the case in other cultures. The West has also de-skilled children and adolescents since the Industrial Revolution did away with much apprenticeship and ushered in child labor laws. In my observation, in the East there is no discontinuity in certain skilled professions, such as go. Children who enter those professions are like little adults. Even though there is no discontinuity, there may still be differences, which is why, I suppose, Eunji got a light sentence. Still, there are those who think that as a professional she should have been held to a higher standard.

[WindCaliber]

Cultural history and etiquette has nothing to do with cheating.

If you don't see the relationship here, I guess I just have to agree to disagree. I am not alone in the standard I hold for professionals - Yeonwoo, for example, also advocated that Kim Eunji not be pro anymore (as well as numerous folks in the comments of her video on this topic). Anyway, it's become apparent to me that this is not a universal viewpoint - at least with folks here on L19. Maybe it's a difference in exposure to go culture in the West. Not really sure.

Just my two cents, but I'm of the opinion that zero-tolerance policies are almost always bad. Sure, 1 year is perhaps a somewhat light sentence, but I feel that a lifetime ban is rather excessive. I think a few years should be the upper limit for a first time offense such as this and perhaps a lifetime ban after the 2nd or 3rd offense.

[Polama]

Stepping back, there do seem to be physiological differences in the teenage brain that explain the variation in behavior between kids and adults. The prefrontal cortex experiences growth at the onset of puberty. And from infants, we know that the pruning away of overproduced neural connections is an important step towards a brain region accomplishing its designed task. This is thus an area "under construction" throughout puberty, into the early twenties. Because it's already matured, and from some hormonal triggers, the amygdala seems to pick up the slack. Especially in emotionally charged or stressful situations, then, teenagers tend to rely on reacting to and alleviating emotions, rather than an integrative thoughtful approach that considers consequences or how their actions affect others. And, really, this is like the primary trope about teenagers for all of history: they can be emotional, inconsiderate of others, and ignore the consequences of their actions. Not because they're bad people, or we don't have high enough expectations, or they lack life experience. Because their brain is still developing the region responsible for considering its actions from a number of angles.

I remember in Middle School and into High School, every time report cards would come out people would get in trouble for implausible schemes to get out of facing up to their bad grades. Lies like "they accidently swapped my grades with the kid who sits in front of me", or changing the letters with a pencil. At best, it'd avoid trouble for a weekend and then lead to much more severe consequences. And they weren't stupid or bad people. But facing the stress of imminent punishment, the amygdala found any immediate solution, without consideration for others or the future.

You can teach a 13 old to wipe me from the board with a 9 stone handicap. You can give them a job and make them support themselves. They can even raise a child. But none of that causes their prefrontal cortex to immediately develop. When faced with emotional challenges, they'll still tend to act a bit selfishly and without foresight.

[Bill Spight]

Stepping back, there do seem to be physiological differences in the teenage brain that explain the variation in behavior between kids and adults. The prefrontal cortex experiences growth at the onset of puberty. And from infants, we know that the pruning away of overproduced neural connections is an important step towards a brain region accomplishing its designed task. This is thus an area "under construction" throughout puberty, into the early twenties. Because it's already matured, and from some hormonal triggers, the amygdala seems to pick up the slack.

You are right about the prefrontal cortex. But the teenager as we know it is a modern phenomenon. Not to get into a nature vs. nurture debate. Both are important.

Especially in emotionally charged or stressful situations, then, teenagers tend to rely on reacting to and alleviating emotions, rather than an integrative thoughtful approach that considers consequences or how their actions affect others. And, really, this is like the primary trope about teenagers for all of history: they can be emotional, inconsiderate of others, and ignore the consequences of their actions.

All of history? Really?

The ancient Persians regarded age 14 as the prime of life. OC, life was shorter than today. Today we avoid giving teenagers much responsibility, because they are too emotional (Hormones! as Phil Donahue used to say) and cannot handle it. How much of that is a self-fulfilling prophecy? In a society where you are a full fledged citizen at age 14, how irresponsible can you be and get away with it?

Bar mitvahs still occur at age 13. "Today you are a man." Really? Do you say that to someone who is controlled by his emotions? Who is incapable of thoughtful, responsible planning?

During the Middle Ages Universities were run by the students. OC, they were not as young as 14, but that is hard for us to imagine today. University students are too immature, we think.

Yes, Cicero complained about "today's youth." That seems to be a constant, at least in civilizations. I don't know what he complained about. Maybe impulsiveness was high on his list, as was thoughtlessness, I dunno. But Western childhood and adolescence are modern developments.

[Polama]

You are right about the prefrontal cortex. But the teenager as we know it is a modern phenomenon. Not to get into a nature vs. nurture debate. Both are important.

Our attitude towards teenagers is modern, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a distinctive developmental phase all along. And reading, say, Romeo and Juliet I clearly see teenagers. Or, heck, go back to Gilgamesh. He certainly reads like an individual passing into the modern conception of adulthood, even if he was an adult all along by contemporary standards.

The ancient Persians regarded age 14 as the prime of life. OC, life was shorter than today. Today we avoid giving teenagers much responsibility, because they are too emotional (Hormones! as Phil Donahue used to say) and cannot handle it. How much of that is a self-fulfilling prophecy? In a society where you are a full fledged citizen at age 14, how irresponsible can you be and get away with it?

Bar mitvahs still occur at age 13. "Today you are a man." Really? Do you say that to someone who is controlled by his emotions? Who is incapable of thoughtful, responsible planning?

I know adults I'm not convinced are capable of thoughtful, responsible planning. Looking at Achilles, or the Knights of the Round Table, I'd say that on the contrary it's the expectation that an adult won't act overly emotionally and recklessly that's the real modern difference. I don't think navigating high school is simpler than working on a farm or fighting in an army.

[John Fairbairn]

Having worked as a Scout leader, I don't believe youthfulness is the problem. Young people are not uniform and they form the same cross-section of personalities when they grow older. A young cheater will become an old cheater. Yes, they will learn as they age - they will learn how not to get caught.

What is harder to tease out is whether a young person apparently caught cheating is guilty less of direct fraud and more of just plain curiosity. After all, curiosity is part of the learning process. You can argue for different penalties in each case.

But there's the dilemma for administrators. If you give a slap on the wrist kind of penalty (say one year) you risk not deterring true cheating (a definite risk it seems, judging by chess). You thereby ultimately risk the downfall of your whole sport, pastime or organisation. If you give a life ban you risk seeming harsh and uncivilised, and unwelcoming to new players. It's tempting, therefore, to go for something in the middle. But this is not a true scale. If you give, say, a three-year ban (and of course the stigma on top of that) this may be tantamount to a life ban in practice, especially for a still developing young person. The organisation may feel it looks caring, moderate and civilised, but they know in their hearts this cheater will probably not come back, or not come back as strong, and they are glad in their hearts. But it's more than a tad hypocritical. A person true to the Way of Go would not risk that stench of hypocrisy. But is this Way of Go expected or even respected in the modern world?

So, we end up on the horns of a dilemma. Ouch!

[Bill Spight]

So, we end up on the horns of a dilemma. Ouch!

This is why judges are given discretion.

[Ferran]

For instance, in the U.S. children are not supposed to drink alcohol, but that's not the case in other cultures.

Every culture has some blind angles. For instance, in the States, I find it quirky that you're allowed to enlist at 18 (know a guy who enlisted as a minor, in fact; legally) but not able to buy a beer.

The West has also de-skilled children and adolescents

I suspect this is changing. But it's true that children are expected to be withheld responsibility and capability. Teach a child to shapren a knife and tell it on a PTA meeting. I'll buy popcorn.

Children who enter those professions are like little adults.

That's were I glitch. They're, at best, apprentices.

Even though there is no discontinuity, there may still be differences, which is why, I suppose, Eunji got a light sentence. Still, there are those who think that as a professional she should have been held to a higher standard.

She's both. Now, for comparison, what would the penalty be for a teen amateur, in Korea?

Take care.

[Ferran]

Stepping back, there do seem to be physiological differences in the teenage brain that explain the variation in behavior between kids and adults.

Yep. IIRC, the hormone dump helps build that. I suspect part of it is experiential, not age-developed. Meaning, grief dumps chemichals into your bloodstream. Different kinds of grief, different recurrence of it, will give you different developments. I was talking with a toy store owner a couple of weeks ago, and she reflected on kids who'd not learned some things were off; those kids, six years later, couldn't play certain games "because they got too frustrated." Well, duh. And the later it comes, the harder it will be. I suspect that other, more complex, developments com with experience (and its related hormone dumps) than age itself. Just a suspicion, though. I'm not a scientist, and I don't even play one on TV.

You can teach a 13 old to wipe me from the board with a 9 stone handicap. You can give them a job and make them support themselves. They can even raise a child. But none of that causes their prefrontal cortex to immediately develop. When faced with emotional challenges, they'll still tend to act a bit selfishly and without foresight.

Indeed. And my worry, and it's something I've seen in sports and have also been told of harsher situations in other sports: trainers who focus on success and train for success, with disregard of the moral impact. You cannot win at any cost; you certainly can't teach that. And I'm not sure we're doing this well, in general. Push people to unconditionally win and you get the first minutes of "The Last Boy Scout".

Take care

[Ferran]

The ancient Persians regarded age 14 as the prime of life. OC, life was shorter than today. Today we avoid giving teenagers much responsibility, because they are too emotional (Hormones! as Phil Donahue used to say) and cannot handle it. How much of that is a self-fulfilling prophecy? In a society where you are a full fledged citizen at age 14, how irresponsible can you be and get away with it?

Well, it IS the prime of life, just not the pinnacle.

I personally detest binary coming of age. If I serve a drink at 11:59 but ask for payment at 0:01, am I distributing alcohol to a minor? And sillier examples. And then we have histories galore of people in college whose mothers try to coax their teachers. It's not that it's illegal to even tell you your kid's grades, ma'am, is that you should have stopped this 4 years ago.

Bar mitvahs still occur at age 13. "Today you are a man." Really? Do you say that to someone who is controlled by his emotions? Who is incapable of thoughtful, responsible planning?

I've had similar discussions with Catholic priests and parishoners when they'd had a kid through Confirmation and then insist their parents had to morally frog-march them. Sorry, no. It doesn't work that way.

During the Middle Ages Universities were run by the students. OC, they were not as young as 14, but that is hard for us to imagine today. University students are too immature, we think.

They are. It's a system feature. Sometimes it leaks to their professors, though.

Take care.

[Ferran]

A young cheater will become an old cheater. Yes, they will learn as they age - they will learn how not to get caught.

That depends on your definition of cheater. Is it "one who cheats" or "one who has cheated"?

One who cheats will cheat. One who's cheated? People are dumb. And teens practice a lot.

A person true to the Way of Go would not risk that stench of hypocrisy. But is this Way of Go expected or even respected in the modern world?

Dunno... What does KataMoral say?

<grin, duck, run>

Personally, I'm tempted to insist on Faraday cages and yukata or swimsuits. Or an EMP pulse through their luggage.

Take care.

[SoDesuNe]

A person true to the Way of Go would not risk that stench of hypocrisy. But is this Way of Go expected or even respected in the modern world?

Indeed that seems to be the heart of the matter: A "holier than thou"-debate. Whether or not you believe professional go players are (by nature) respectable people. Of course this belief is just one disrespectfulness away from collapsing - as all good beliefs tend to be. And - like with all good beliefs - in time of doubt you refrain from questioning the core of your belief but choose to uphold it with any means necessary. Otherwise it all would have been a lie, woudn't it? #sunkcostfallacy

Good that chess had Fischer and Alekhine.

On a lighter note: I recently talked to a local youth chess coach. To keep their young talents interested in chess and continue to develop their skills during lockdown they organised a closed 25 players online tournament where all games were reviewed by the coaches and even one-on-one sessions were available. All players personally knew each other. One blatantely cheated and was banned of course. A couple of the others were suspected.

We continued down that path for a while. A young player receiving a 9 month ban for alledged cheating in the european championship (he had his cell phone on him in the playing area), who - after the ban - played quite a lot weaker than before (and thus seemed to have learnt his lesson). An older GM painstakingly boosting his rating in weak opens until - like in Bill Spight's article - people got suspicious due to him beating all elo statistics (guess what, statistically you are going to lose against weaker players once in a while). The Petrosian-case, the polish-girl-case.

Sounds depressing? I was certainly shocked and arguably they will be a lot of cases that are not yet discovered. But did you see the newest numbers in chess players (ie on chess.com)? Queen's Gambit indeed! Chess is thriving hard.

In a nutshell: Some people will cheat. Some people will get caught. Some won't. Welcome to the real world.

Steve brought up my activity on L19, and I quickly assured him that I often play the devil's advocate on the forums - the opinions I express so strongly are not necessarily my own, and that I try to bring balance to discussions where I think they are leaning too much toward a particular viewpoint.

; )

[Kirby]

Indeed that seems to be the heart of the matter: A "holier than thou"-debate. Whether or not you believe professional go players are (by nature) respectable people.

I don't believe that pros are gods, or that they don't make mistakes. But I believe that being a professional is not only about skill at go, and people employed by go associations should not be invincible to being fired - just like any other job. I play devil's advocate sometimes, yes. But I don't think this particular viewpoint is all that extreme.

And as a pro go player, if anything is worth being fired for, cheating in a for-cash tournament seems a good candidate. It amounts to stealing money from the sponsors. Insider trading may be an example of a "fire-able" offense in a company outside of the go world. Both are stealing, and in the latter, you'll likely get jail time.

[SoDesuNe]

I play devil's advocate sometimes, yes. But I don't think this particular viewpoint is all that extreme.

Our viewpoints make for a excellent debate, so all is fine : ) With your quote I just wanted to clarify that if my post might be perceived as (too) edgy, this was my intent for the sake of a lively discussion.

And as a pro go player, if anything is worth being fired for, cheating in a for-cash tournament seems a good candidate.

It is. But being fired by the only organisation who can actually employ you is quite a bit harsher than your average job loss.

And the question whether or not this actually prevents further cheating has not yet been adressed.

[John Fairbairn]

But being fired by the only organisation who can actually employ you is quite a bit harsher than your average job loss.

But Kirby's example was "Insider trading may be an example of a "fire-able" offense in a company outside of the go world. " That's not an average job loss.

How about this for a compromise? Instead of disqualification for one year, you get disqualified totally, but have the right to reapply for membership after one year. The re-application is then dependent on what the rest of the membership feels, which will reflect one year's more information about the remorse shown by the cheater, one year's more worth of fans' and sponsors' reactions, and one year's more information about the scale of the cheating problem.