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

[Ferran]

Regarding teenage responsibility and pro status. Imagine I focus on Nakamura-shodan junior schoolmates. I mentor one of them and convince her to celebrate her shodan by poisoning the school cafeteria.

Since she can sign contracts, she's on death row, right? She's responsible, an adult. And Japan does have death penalty.

Oh, but I convinced her as a minor, before she could sign... Sure. Then, what if I wait? At what point would that no longer be absurd?

Take care.

[Kirby]

In baseball, steroid use nets you 1/2 season, then a full season, then a lifetime ban. A year doesn't seem out of line with how other professional games deal with cheating.

I'd also note that teaching is an important source of income for professional Go players. A damaged reputation is probably a cost above and beyond just the suspension time.

The steroids example doesn't exactly fit - steroids may enhance your athletic ability in some way, but the result of your performance is not guaranteed. Cheating with AI can nearly guarantee that you'll win against a non-cheater.

I agree that damaged reputation is harmful to a pro. My point in addition to that is that an organization that tolerates players with damaged reputations, in itself, gets a damaged reputation.

For professional go to mean anything, there has to be a culture of morality and honor - above the levels you'd see in some sporting event. If we strip professional go of its honor, then the organization really loses value. Wanna watch the latest Ing Cup tournament? Who really cares? You might just be watching two bots play, anyway.

[SoDesuNe]

A life time ban seems only justified if it prevents mores players from cheating than with a three-year-ban. E.g. the dealth penalty does not prevent more people from killing than decades long prison sentences.

Though I must say, I find the notion of morality and honour in the context of professional go quite odd. It's a sport. It should be fair and an equal level playing field. That's what rules are for. Subjective feelings what ought to be correct make for good entertainment or pub talk but that's it.

[Kirby]

Though I must say, I find the notion of morality and honour in the context of professional go quite odd.

I believe that a number of professional players in Korea would disagree with you. And in fact, this particular professional player is likely getting special treatment because of her earlier performances (and, perhaps, her mom). Had it been an older, poorer performing player, they'd have gotten the axe.

[John Fairbairn]

believe that a number of professional players in Korea would disagree with you. And in fact, this particular professional player is likely getting special treatment because of her earlier performances. Had it been an older, poorer performing player, they'd have gotten the axe.

How do you think that stacks with the sex assault allegation not too long ago?

[Kirby]

believe that a number of professional players in Korea would disagree with you. And in fact, this particular professional player is likely getting special treatment because of her earlier performances. Had it been an older, poorer performing player, they'd have gotten the axe.

How do you think that stacks with the sex assault allegation not too long ago?

Kim Sungryong also deserved to get the axe. He was a popular commentator, yeah. But you can't behave that way.

[baduk]

I dont understand why age shouldnt be taken in to account,just because they are pros they are still humans,especially younger kids are still developing,of course they should be punished,but I cant imagine in any sport in the world where a lifetime ban for a 13 years old would ever happen no matter if they are succesful or not

[jlt]

Using AI in go matches could be compared with mechanical doping in bicycle racing. Femke Van den Driessche was banned for 6 years.

[John Fairbairn]

Using AI in go matches could be compared with mechanical doping in bicycle racing. Femke Van den Driessche was banned for 6 years.

The parallel is a good one.

But there was rather more to it than "6 years", I believe. She had her previous results annulled (in go that would presumably mean having promotions voided), but more importantly the sponsors said they would sue her. As a result she retired voluntarily, and so what many people would claim was the right outcome was achieved anyway. I don't know how the law suit panned out, but in cycling you mostly represent either yourself or a team, and it would be only you as an individual or the team who could expect to be sued. In go you represent a guild - all other go players in your country. The whole guild could therefore be sued, or at the very least the sponsor would withdraw entirely.

So self-preservation for the guild could demand a very stiff and public punishment. I would imagine that was considered, and age might have been a factor, but it is likely in my view that they also hesitated over fears of a messy and drawn-out law suit by the player.

One thing we see in professional sport in the west, and this cycling instance is a good example, is that cheaters rarely show remorse. Like van den Driessche they claim they didn't get a fair trial, or had bad advice, or had a bad hair day. The only regret they show is at getting caught.

The reason the parallel is good is that in very many sports cheating can be opportunistic. A trip in football, shifting a ball or a leaf in golf, grunting in tennis, showing spikes as you steal a base in baseball, and so on. Even though horrific injuries can result at times, penalties tend not to be draconian because people recognise irregular things can happen in the heat of the moment.

But with mechanical doping, as with the use of AI in go, there is no spontaneity about it. It is planned meticulously and away from the pressure of the moment. And if it succeeds, it can go on and on and on for years. Viz. Lance Armstrong.

The other problem with this kind of sustainable cheating is that opponents who suspect something is afoot, but can't prove it, decide to join the cheaters. Just as athletics is now a contest between pharmacists, professional go will become a contest between programmers.

I notice that very many of the comments here on the scale of punishments are nearly all about the perpetrator's age or the perpetrator's teacher or the fan's pressure on the perpetrator, and no doubt in due course we'll hear sob stories about the perpetrator's home life or school life. But there has been barely a peep about the hundreds of victims (thousands if we take a long tern view in the case of a mild sanction).

The best way forward may be for these victims - the fellow professionals - to decide, though their guilds, what action to take against their own fellow member. This wouldn't work in cycling or other international sports because national pride would get in the way too easily. But it not only can happen in go, it already has for past misdemeanours, in both Korea and Japan. China operates differently because of government involvement and so no guild structure, but cheating has happened there, too, and was likewise dealt with robustly. On occasions the verdicts in each of these countries can seem like whitewash, but we don't get to see the undertow that does relentlessly operate over time.

Of course, maybe the undertow is being relied on here, too.

[Kirby]

I notice that very many of the comments here on the scale of punishments are nearly all about the perpetrator's age or the perpetrator's teacher or the fan's pressure on the perpetrator, and no doubt in due course we'll hear sob stories about the perpetrator's home life or school life. But there has been barely a peep about the hundreds of victims (thousands if we take a long tern view in the case of a mild sanction).

That's a good point. This is not only about punishing someone who did something wrong - it's also about consideration for the victims and others who have been impacted.

[jlt]

Of course there are victims, but this doesn't mean the perpetrator's age shouldn't be taken into consideration. By analogy, victims of 13 year-old criminals suffers as much as victims of adults, but jail sentences of 13 year-olds are lighter because they are not considered to be fully aware of the consequences of their actions.

[Ferran]

Also, you can't magically discard the responsibilty for rearing kids just because they can legally enter a contract. I wrote of more extreme situations before, but, if it helps, one that could happen (because equivalent things have... say, in soccer) anytime:

Imagine I'm a kid's guardian. Raise him, manage to get a court (or a law or...) to agree he can legally enter contracts. On his own cognizance. Then I have him sign a contract with me that robs him blind. The kind of contract adults sign every day, get robbed blind, and are told, by the courts, "Nope, you signed it, you own it."

Will I be prosecuted?

Now, regarding the victims: they should be compensated. I don't hear anything about that, though. No one's saying, "half [*] the kid's income for the next 4 years will be redirected to the federations emergency fund" or something like it. What I'm reading doesn't help the victims in the slightest, so I feel no obligation to agree with it in deference to some victims that are not being helped anyhow.

Also, I have some discrepancies with the goal of professional organizations. Which is it? Is it nurturing new talent? Is it augmenting the art? In players? In technique? Or is it simply a Guild?

If it is a Guild, then I have no ties to it. No obligations. No moral support. Not more than I have to the Worshipul Company of Mercers, and I'm not even a Briton. Provide a service or go bankrupt. Not my problem. And, just sayin', it has to be a service that's superior to that of an AI.

Take care.

[*] Because you want him to actually have an incentive to win some. 100% for two years could simply have the child disappear (and train?) for those 2 years.

[John Fairbairn]

By analogy, victims of 13 year-old criminals suffers as much as victims of adults, but jail sentences of 13 year-olds are lighter because they are not considered to be fully aware of the consequences of their actions.

Well, first let us take step back. The case we are talking about here is not yet a crime. There is no criminal, just an alleged transgressor in a case, which, if it came to court, would be a civil tort, I think. There are victims, though.

But for the purposes of discussion, let us consider crime. I'm not sure the above quote is true. There are at least two components: the crime and the sentence. One or both or neither may be impacted by the person's age. Just thinking something should be so doesn't make it so. I can't speak for what happens outside the UK, and I can't even quantify the impact inside the UK. All I can say is that the two elements are considered separately and different criteria can apply to each.

When I was young, there was a famous case of an 11-year-old child killing two toddlers. She was found guilty of the crime of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility. I am not aware whether her age was a specific factor in that, but the age of the victims was certainly a factor in the court of public opinion, which was outraged. Possibly reflecting that, the judge's sentence was effectively the maximum - she was detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, which is a way of saying "for ever, unless we change out minds." She was eventually released on licence after (I think) about 20 years, which is a longer spell than some adults.

However, the judge may have been giving a normal sentence irrespective of age, because we can even identify a third element in the justice system: how sentences are carried out. Age certainly becomes a factor here. Child criminals are typically locked up away from adults, in juvenile centres. The length of detention may, nevertheless, be the same.

This case erupts again every now and then as journalists continue to dig into it. The court of public opinion is a powerful one, and possibly an unfair one. But it's the only one the victims have in many cases.

But I repeat. These paragraphs are about crime and gaol time. They have nothing to do with alleged AI cheating in go. There, essentially, the court of public opinion is the only one that applies. Some jurors will shrug and says, "she's a kid." Others will argue the potential impact on the game as a whole (victim effect, sponsorship, educational value, etc) is too great to ignore. Probably the vast majority will wait and see, and maybe cast an eye for enlightenment at how it is affecting the chess world.

[Kirby]

It’s simple. I don’t advocate putting a 13 year old in jail for something like this. I advocate taking away her pro status. Being a pro is an earned privilege, which comes with responsibility. If you’re irresponsible, you don’t deserve the job.

Anyway, it's okay that not everyone has the same opinion on this. We're not the ones making the decision, and the choice has already been made: she'll get away with the cheating with a year ban slap on the wrist.

My opinion doesn't change that. Just a little sad for a future where cheating is tolerated like this in professional go...

[jlt]

Those kids who become pro at a very young age may not have chosen freely to do so. They were raised in a very competitive environment, didn't have a normal childhood, and adults around them put them pressure to study harder and pass the pro exam. Were they really aware that their lives could be different, that they could make other choices?

The pro exam is a measure of go skill, not of maturity or morality. The person you are at 13 is not the same as the person you are at 18. Give children the chance to become better adults instead of suffering all your life from the consequences of your actions at 13.

That said, I agree that "it's okay that not everyone has the same opinion on this".