Re: Does AlphaGo belittle our efforts in Go?
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:20 pm
As a mathematician, I don't think calculators have degraded our capacity to think. They may have degraded our capacity to calculate, just like cars have degraded our capacity to run but enhanced our capacity to get somewhere.
In 1998 I made a private thesis in number theory, next to my official work. I was investigating a certain pattern. My initial hypothesis, based on insights in the lower number behavior was partly confirmed but also denied then refined, thanks to a program I wrote in Maple. I could have done the calculations by hand but I would have spent weeks to get where Maple got me in one day. I could spend those weeks instead on thinking about the theory that encompassed the larger number outcomes.
Galileo had a very rough insight in certain laws of physics, because he did not have algebra at his disposal. Today this is unthinkable but he really didn't have it and needed to formulate his thoughts in long sentences, which were overlapping. His energy was not well spent. Surely when algebra arrived there must have been a few romantics who lamented the lost art of formulating mathematical truths in long sentences. Today, millions of people can think on a higher level of abstraction than Galileo did, thanks to algebra. Of course, there are billions of people still dumber than Galileo was. Collective progress is not uniform.
I don't know what Alphago is going to bring us in terms of new insights in Go. I'm sure though that scientists will be able to crack formerly unsolvable problems with new data aggregations or even languages or other interfaces to the problem at hand, driven by new discoveries through AI. And still there will be lots of people who don't recognize a group in atari.
In 1998 I made a private thesis in number theory, next to my official work. I was investigating a certain pattern. My initial hypothesis, based on insights in the lower number behavior was partly confirmed but also denied then refined, thanks to a program I wrote in Maple. I could have done the calculations by hand but I would have spent weeks to get where Maple got me in one day. I could spend those weeks instead on thinking about the theory that encompassed the larger number outcomes.
Galileo had a very rough insight in certain laws of physics, because he did not have algebra at his disposal. Today this is unthinkable but he really didn't have it and needed to formulate his thoughts in long sentences, which were overlapping. His energy was not well spent. Surely when algebra arrived there must have been a few romantics who lamented the lost art of formulating mathematical truths in long sentences. Today, millions of people can think on a higher level of abstraction than Galileo did, thanks to algebra. Of course, there are billions of people still dumber than Galileo was. Collective progress is not uniform.
I don't know what Alphago is going to bring us in terms of new insights in Go. I'm sure though that scientists will be able to crack formerly unsolvable problems with new data aggregations or even languages or other interfaces to the problem at hand, driven by new discoveries through AI. And still there will be lots of people who don't recognize a group in atari.