But your arrogance and stupidity took over your logic and you feel immensely proud of your ancestors and start trashing and belittling other achievement.

lecturing Americans about how shitty they are in broken English, I think you shouldn’t accuse others of arrogance.

and speaking of logic, there is no logic in this identity stuff you peddle here, just feelz and spin. It’s what crowd you’re in with.

The sooner you understand that, the sooner you’ll become a worthy member of the human race rather than a resentful 3rd worlder.

Whereas the actual football game, crazed throughout the Europe was invented in China. Yeah, talk about European invented games and no one wants to copy.

citation needed. not that it was invented in China, but that “the Europe” got it from there and nowhere else, or didn’t come up with it on her own (there are only so many ways to kick a ball across a lawn.)

The West has been the most consistent in acknowledging other cultures’ contributions. You’re in “we wuz kangs ‘n sheeit” territory here and the cause is your ethnic/racial resentment, for whatever reason.

While I laugh my ass off, seeing this stupidity is like Whales freely swimming in the tank full of water and thinking “I’m the most desired phenotype in the world.”

It is not about being the most desired phenotype in the world, it is about being the most desired whale type; a judgement made all time. Life is about choosing with whom to associate in our efforts to better ourselves; and it matters very much who propagates, whether you admit it or not.

In the first line of your reply you announced your judgement that you are more intelligent than others, same as the whale announcing that he is the most desired phenotype. That in the long run we are all dead, or we will be surpassed by other beings, is orthogonal to what is being discussed.

That ‘all men are created equal” is a simplifying assumption adopted to deflect from having to confront some thornier issues. It is not really true.

you feel immensely proud of your ancestors and start trashing and belittling other achievement.

I noted that in the Pantheon of culture, some contribute more than others. It is not necessarily an observation that trashes others. I’m pointing out that people vote with their feet and who they are voting for. I’m sure the Pakistanis are wonderful people, but I don’t see too many people copying how they do things.

Back to AlphaGo:

Artificial intelligence has a crutial weakness compared to humans due to its very definition –> they can not overcome desinger’s initial artificial parameters.

This has a wide implications ROFL:

for example, AlphaGo can (almost) never win Team Panda (of 3p) on a Mahjong table. LMAO!

Another example, AlphaGo would likely always loss to Team Panda (of more than 2p) on a Blackjack table. ROFL

etc.

This is simply because humans can team up together cheating the games, whereas by its parameters AlpahGo/machines can not.

—–

Lee Sedol went to all 5 games against AlphaGo with his daughter.

He won the 4th game resolutely.

His daughter was reported sitting next to the electric plug at the 4th game…

LMAO

I don’t want to go into details about Golf since it’s still controversial in origin.

Just ignore those laughable ignorants.

BTW as we’re at football, even though Golf is still contravertial, Polo was first invented in China’s Tang Dynasty for sure, which was documented and painted in details.

About games —>

the Chinese invented world’s all-time most popular game: card games;

perhaps also world’s first drinking game as China invented brandy and whiskey -> Una más? ROFL

World-famous board games invented by China like Checkers, Chess ( still contravertial due to Anglo’s current tight control of world-wide scholarly influences and their past glory of holding British Raj. Called “Xiangqi” in China), and Weiqi are the ones Panda likes the most and plays the most. LoL

You are so politically correct that you now can’t tell the difference between minnows and humans. Your handlers must be very proud.

As proud as your peanut brain can spew out this ridiculous comment here.

Chinese-Sihk-Hindu-Korean-Pakistani for the most part don’t have art anyone wants to look at; they don’t have literature anyone wants to read; they don’t have music anyone wants to listen to; they don’t create games anyone wants to play; and they don’t create societies to which anyone wants to move. European cultural mores are largely what the world copies.

Football game was invented in China. Americans don’t understand the difference between Soccer and Football. Americans think (I might need to emphasize here, the White Americans), that their football is the most globally recognized in the world. If you think about it, their so-called football was played by a bunch of guys, catching and grabbing oblong-shaped balls by their hands and never used their foot per se. That’s what they called football.

Whereas the actual football game, crazed throughout the Europe was invented in China. Yeah, talk about European invented games and no one wants to copy.

I don’t want to go into details about Golf since it’s still controversial in origin.

Let alone Cricket game enjoyed by one of the most populous countries in the world.

Now I’m not lionizing what China has achieved in the past. The point I want to make is, we are evolving either we like it or not. Along those evolutionary tracts, several branches or offshoot of evolutionary beings must have fight for their survival, and see the world through their own lens. Their pride, their arrogance, their stupidity, and such. That’s why I put you into the shoes of Sharks, Whales, Minnows or Lion, Tiger, Dog, or Neanderthals. Future do not belong to you or a particular race. As many as millions of differences are there between those species, they do exist as offshoot beings or a stepping stone in the evolutionary tract.

Of course, I’m one of them. I feel proud of my ancestors. I take pride in my role in society. I can see you feel proud of your ancestors too. But your arrogance and stupidity took over your logic and you feel immensely proud of your ancestors and start trashing and belittling other achievement. Over time, those kinds of thought become your morning rituals and your daily dose of existence.

While I laugh my ass off, seeing this stupidity is like Whales freely swimming in the tank full of water and thinking “I’m the most desired phenotype in the world.”

even a tiny minnow has DNA codon for actin structures which make up the cellular cytoskeleton in the body, is very similar to our own DNA codon in Humans.

What a good Party member. You are so politically correct that you now can’t tell the difference between minnows and humans. Your handlers must be very proud.

Everybody notices and uses phenotypic differences. In your case, White people need to be noticed and discriminated against so you can gain status within your cell.

Weiqi is the last defence of human honour in front of machines in terms of games, cuz it is probably the only one left, out of 6,000+ human games, that has not been beaten by machines yet : Lee Sedol lost to AlphaGo, but Lee doesn’t represent the top of humans’current capability, Ke Jie does.

Weiqi is probably the most complicated game human have ever invented so far, largely because its complexity/possible moves are more than the number of atoms in the entire universe ( so Weiqi is far far far far far… more complicated than simple Chess). Precisely because of this, “raw” horsepower of calculation is a major part of the game.

Question about the “raw” horsepower:

It is impossible for a human to compete with AlphaGo on computational speed & the corresponding accuracy. A top human player usually mind-calculates 4 or 5 steps ahead before each move, whereas meantime AlphaGo “makes N copy” of itself and each copy calculates say 10,000 steps for each possibilities till the end, then choose the one strategy with the best probability before making its counter move. .. it’s like no human mathematician can compete on speed of weather forecasting variances with a supercomputer.

In this sense it’s not One HumanVs AlphaGo, but One Human Vs 10s of thousands or millions of “AlphaGos” depending on the complexity of a game.

So for the “raw” horsepower, humans have no chance whatsoever.

Question about the speed of progress:

An average human professional Weiqi player could have time to play 3 games daily, whereas AlphaGo can play 1 million per day. A human top player can remember thousands of games in the history to draw lessons from, whereas AlphaGo has all 30 million+ top history games in its database to draw from choosing the most relevent probabbility with zero error rate in about 0.02 second (assuming no one pulls the plug meantime, LOL).

panda believes that if Ke Jie, the #1 human player, goes against Alpha now, he might have 60% chance of winning, but the situation could be reversed if it will be slightly later.

So human stands no chance to compete on the speed of progress.

Question on the creativity:

To say that AlphaGo/machine is not creative is kidding ourselves. Of course it is! In the second game of AlphaGo Vs South Korea’s Lee Sedol, AlphaGo made 1 move that sent many of top Chinese players into tears of shock+joy, because this move was in the full creative spirit of the late “Saint of Weiqi” Wu Qing Yuan, the most powerful player ever existed(perhaps even more than the current world’s #1 Ke Jie), that currently no one player in the world has balls to move like that. Seeing that move was like see Wu Qing Yuan back again.

It seems that AlphaGo could “sense” some degrees of beauty/elegance now!

AlphaGo could “sense” the what is “bigger game” definitely!

Humans seem lossing our edges on all fronts in an alarming speed .

However, Panda sees that there is a crucial difference btw AlphaGo’s creativity and Human creativity —->

The essence and nature of human creativity is, more often than not, from Zero to One, from non-existence to existence; whereas AlphaGo’s creativity is from millions of Ones to choosing the One with higher/better probability, meaning from existence to existence!

It is no surprise that a human brains is still far far far far…more complex evolutionary machine than AlphaGo brain/database, which is after all just a simple imitation (set by computer programmers’ parametres) of several limited simple functions within human’s complex brain mechanism.

The advancement of AlphaGo can force pushing the creativity of world’s top players to a new height( for that matter also pushing forward deeper research of human brain science), because in order to beat AlphaGo the speed, the accuracy of the calculations and memory of old school lessons become much less crucial than otherwise. Top players must be forced to breakthrough the barriers of creativity again and again to shock AlphaGo’s 30 million-plus- historical-sets database…

…nonetheless, if 0 to 1 type creativity can not be found now, Panda thinks the old-school creativity could still be applied to beat AlphaGo for the time being: false moves to jam the sucker’s computational time in order to force it making incomplete calculations hence imperfect move/s. ROFL!

So you don’t think computers can be creative? Well a quote from an earlier post,”…By 2030, PC has collective computing power of a town full of human
minds…”. So if you have the equivalent of the population of Atlanta, Ga. all with above 100 IQ making various attempts at a problem each varying their methods a little is this creativity? Does it matter if a problem is solved what it’s called? Are Humans methods of creativity any different?

Notice Rdm has noticed how small the differences in Human population genetics are and seems to say people are fools to notice differences in behavior when the genetic difference is so small. Well you can get a house for almost free in Detroit. Why don’t you move there and get you a free house? One person mentioned Pakistan. I bet you could purchase land there for a song. We have solar power now at reasonable prices. Why not move there?

So the high IQ discussion of Weiqi and artificial intelligence here has been successfully derailed by the 3-horse competition of Dumb, Dumber & the Dumbest?

OKE, all of you 3 draw even @ score of 83.5, happy now? ROFL!

Most immigrants seem to move to areas with lots of immigrants and immigrant societies, rather than whiter areas like West Virginia, Maine, Idaho, etc.

Most immigrants seem to move to areas with lots of immigrants and immigrant societies, rather than whiter areas like West Virginia, Maine, Idaho, etc.

Do you think I haven’t read it?

In the meantime, I want you to read Alan Turings’ orginal paper:Can Computers Think….

And everybody else read Kirkpatrick Sale’s(Thomas Pynchons’s Cornell buddy) book on the Luddites.

Even worse, what about software bugs? Let’s say in the future an AI tasked to grow corn suddenly realizes that if humans were out of the way it could really grow lots more corn. It somehow links to the net, studies humans and eventually finds a way to engineer a virus that kills all humans. It then proceeds to cover the planet with corn. It is very happy.

Kills all human, and cover the planet with corn. Yea.

If that kind of thinking, or logic exist in AI, we are surely doomed. Maybe it’s called bug?

Love it, when Nationalist argues over which phenotype is the best. hahah

Here’s the scenario if you guys like to peak into the future.

There’re tons of those Beings in the future controlling over mere mortals like Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Africans, you name it.

Those Beings do not belong to a particular phenotype like Whites, Asians, etc etc etc.

Those Beings outclass any races in any imaginable ways. While mere mortals like us are arguing over: White trashing Blacks, Blacks defending their value, who’s who the best phenotype.

However, those Beings DNA will be very similar to us Homo Sapien. The only difference is nobody can claim who belong to whose race.

If you still can’t figure out why, here’s the very simple version of it.

—————————————-

There are thousands of different types of fish. Some are huge, some are gigantic, some are small. They fight for each other. Sharks think they are the best of the best in fish type, considering living in waters. Whales think they are the most gigantic phenotype you can ever dream of. Minnows think they live in their own bubble. Over millions of evolution, we see terrestrial animals; Lions think they are the kings of the jungle. Bloodhounds think they are the best hunters.

Fast forward, Orangutans think they are the most mobile animals. Their prehensile limbs and mobile legs give them the facility. Fast forward, Neanderthals think they were the Emperor of the world. They can kill any species, burn them, eat them, as they wish.

If we extract DNA from those species in several evolutionary period, we will surprisingly see that even a tiny minnow has DNA codon for actin structures which make up the cellular cytoskeleton in the body, is very similar to our own DNA codon in Humans.

So Sharks must be thinking, Since I’m the most strong, king of the ocean, and possess very likable phenotype you can ever imagine of, I will contribute much to the world, showing the condescending attitude towards a tiny minnow while we Humans will be laughing our ass off.

Killing as we wish, making their bones as museum display, and even putting them into zoo for display pleasure.

And you go figure.

Chinese-Sihk-Hindu-Korean-Pakistani for the most part don’t have art anyone wants to look at; they don’t have literature anyone wants to read; they don’t have music anyone wants to listen to; they don’t create games anyone wants to play; and they don’t create societies to which anyone wants to move. European cultural mores are largely what the world copies.

Love it.

bomag

The problem with your post is that it is still stuck in the Functionalist Philosophy Realm.

What we are losing is the Blood-Guts-Geneline-Native Born European stock that made America desirable to Blood-Guts-Geneline-Native Born White American-European Stock Type. And this is the only phenotype that I care about.

We are a different phenotype…We are a different RACIAL TYPE(which is why we are being singled out for demographic extermination by the various legal nonwhite Fifth Columns on Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space)

Back to supercomputer Go gammers….they are a different TYPE. Functionalism confuses different Types. Its a Type mistake.

…legal immigrants and their US born geneline are Turing equivalent to The Historic Native Born White American Majority…So what’s the big deal with rapidly race-replacing The Historic Native Born White American Majority in Silicon Valley…and the rest of California…..America will still be America!!!!

The problem here is that this is not creative destruction; this is just destruction. We are losing the European aesthetic that made America a country others desire.

Chinese-Sihk-Hindu-Korean-Pakistani for the most part don’t have art anyone wants to look at; they don’t have literature anyone wants to read; they don’t have music anyone wants to listen to; they don’t create games anyone wants to play; and they don’t create societies to which anyone wants to move. European cultural mores are largely what the world copies.

We set aside parks and wilderness areas to preserve what they hold in deference to the past and future. We might do well to preserve something of “The Historic Native Born White American Majority” for similar reasons.

Here we go:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12190917/Google-AlphaGo-cant-beat-me-says-China-Go-grandmaster.html

Anatoly

I think you might find this very interesting. Apparently Human Beings..who are trained properly…can kick the shit out of supercomputers when it comes to protein folding.

A Carniege Mellon Computer Science Researcher has been tapping into the hardcore gaming community for his protein folding research. He has created a protein folding game that you can download. The human is trained to apply a few simple protein folding rules. Then, the game of protien folding commences. Fold the protien correctly and you get your name as a co-author on a scientific paper.

Racks of supercomputers+multicores+clever algorithms can’t compete with the lowly Human Protien Folder(secretaries….truck drivers…carpenters…store clerks…

For those interested in the quantum computing stuff…of which I only know itty bit…ty linear algebra qubi…tery microscopic Planck scale amount(this would be the sub-pinhead level)…honestly,quite a pathetically small amount…BQP COMPLEXITY CLASS is where all the action is in the Quantum Computing Realm.

So “it from qubits?”…To rephrase John Wheeler’s famous conjecture….

Turing computational models of Human Cognitive Faculties is a perfectly reasonably research program. However, where it gets into trouble is when Turing-like computational models of the human mind-brain morphs into Functionalism.

Abstract away from the hardware…then abstract away again..BINGO:Humans are computers…computers are just smarter Humans…

I can’t help notice the similarity between functionalism in the AI field and in the Democratic Party field of race-replacing The Historic Native Born White American Majority with Chinese…Sihk…Hindu..Pakistani..and Korean legal immigrants and their US born geneline. If America is an abstract proposition Nation based only on worship of the Constitution and on worship of free-markets….well heck…Chinese-Sihk-Hindu-Korean-Pakistani legal immigrants and their US born geneline are Turing equivalent to The Historic Native Born White American Majority…So what’s the big deal with rapidly race-replacing The Historic Native Born White American Majority in Silicon Valley…and the rest of California…..America will still be America!!!!

Weiqi is the most complicated and the most beautiful board game invented by China, and the world.

It tests the depth of philosophy, elegancy, creativity, and of course, watertight logic and insane amount of calculations.

On the front of logic and calculation, and elegancy as well to a large extend, machines can beat humans no doubt. It’s meaningless and unfair ask a top Olympics player to compete on weight-lifting with a bulldozer, or ask Usain Bolt to outrun a second-hand pickup truck.

In essence it is an unfair game because a human player represents he and him only, whereas this computer represents expericences and judgements of 10s of thousands or millions of historical “players” it trined its programmes with combined: it is not 1 Vs 1, but 1 Vs X.

Still, there’re plenty of ways to beat this “AlphaGo” ( it should be AlphaWeiqi instead) :

1. The later stage the game goes to, the stronger Alpha becomes, simply due to the fact that the goal will become clearer, thus relatively less calculations will be required, while human players on the contrary will be more tired, more emotional, hence both physically and psychologically more prone to make a mistake. So, humans must outscore it at the starting part of the game using creativity( or at least more creative strategies that the machine know not too much about).

2. set more traps: it is just a machine that calculates the probabilities at every step – the more traps it encounters, more “confusing” hence more time it’ll need for calculations. Humans could overwelme it by deliberately missleading – Panda calls it “Jam the sucker!” ROFL –

of course, this is a double-edged swort that creates extra troubles for humans at the same time as well.

3. with the help of some top computer programmers to find the loopholes and weak points of its programming. The machine program is created by a human mind after all. No human mind has zero weakness. It has weakness and will always has! Once the weakness is identified, a correct game strategy can be found to beat it.

4. Nah, Panda’s favorate: if none of above 3 works as quickly as expected, short-circuit or unplug the sucker will ensure the ultimate and complete human victory! ROFL

BTW, AK

Update -

Lee won the fourth game!

A win rate of 25% means that AlphaGo’s Elo likely superiority over Lee’s current 3519 points has just plummeted from 400-450 (based on predictions market) to 191, i.e. 3710. Still higher than top player Kim Jie at 3621.

…

Sorry, AK, it is NOT Kim Jie – sounds like a fictionary Korean name, but Ke Jie - the world’s #1, a 18-year-old Han Chinese prodigy who is arguablely the most powerful player in the known world history of Weiqi so far. Lee Sedol lost to AlphaGo by 1:4, but he lost to Ke Jie by 2:8 last time.

Ke Jie’s remarks on AlphaGo Vs Lee Sedol:

1. after 1:0, Ke said that AlphaGo is expectedly strong and he has 60% chance winning AlphaGo.

2. Afer 2:0, Ke said it is shocking that Lee played the set very badly and, other top Chinese players reckon the same. but AlpagGo seems even stronger than he expected.

3. After 3:0, Ke said that he felt nauseating and desperated at the same time, because Lee´s defeat in this set was total, complete.

4. After 4:1, Ke said he is still confident of winning the machine, but not entirely so sure as before, and he is expecting the day coming soon when the machine challenges him for the ultimate fight, so he´ll have to make some preparations now for it.

I’m not so sure that it is theoretically true that a quantum computer could beat AlphaGo. Theoretically, Quantum Computers would have a very limited range of applications…cryptography….factoring integers….and simulating quantum systems. Moreover, attacking classical computation problems would result in an exponential slowdown of the quantum computer. This is all standard canonical quantum computing stuff understood by the experts which I am not.

The idea is that while computers can compute very complicated mathematical problems very quickly and without errors (which would take a human decades using papers, and the human would make so many mistakes the result would be useless), but they are not very good at holistic thinking, intuition, etc.

The question is, is it possible to enhance the abilities of a normal chess master to the level of world champion grandmaster with the help of some clever computer program? A program which, in and of itself, perhaps wouldn’t even be capable of winning a game against a reasonably capable human, but whose abilities would complement the chess master’s abilities in a way that the two together would be able to beat the world champion?

I’m not sure if that’s possible, but apparently the commenter utu was asking the question if there was a way for us to know if Deep Blue wasn’t such a human-machine combined player, rather than just a machine with no human inputs.

Oh come on Anatoly…Deepblue Go realm is not going into the superhuman realm…it is going into the super-duper-supercomputer-realm. Just another powerfull “steam shovel”. Chomsky and Turing are both right about this.

I’m not looking for a prolonged debate about this with you. Not trying to take your fun away. Just registering my dissent. Back to regularly scheduled Unz Review programming.

Am I allowed to viciously insult DeepBlue Go on Unz Review…I don’t want to be prosecuted for a hate crime by the Democratic Party.

Are their any decent “ethnic-racial” slurs that I can hurl at supercomputers…I mean really offensive ones!!!!!!!!!!!

I keep hearing people say that computers will never do what humans can do. I doubt this seriously. It’s very frightening. I would have never believed many years ago when using DOS that speech recognition would come so soon and the capabilities are speeding up. Even if Moore’s law is halved it’s still a doubling of computer power very frequently. This adds up, fast.

You folks really ought to look at this. From Dennis M. Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, “Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025] “. He goes over the trends of technology coming up and how they may play out. His report is not some wild eyed fanaticism it’s based on reasonable trends. Link.

https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025

Page 19 shows capability of the human brain and time line for human level computation.
Page 70 gives the computing power trend and around 2025 we get human level computation for $1000.

2025 is bad but notice it says”…By 2030, PC has collective computing power of a town full of human
minds…”.

The real problem is not that the machine is smart it’s that it has no empathy for humans. How does empathy work? I don’t think anyone knows. It’s hard enough to program intelligence. We know people with no empathy cause all sorts of problems. What about psychopathic super machines. It’s frightening

Even worse, what about software bugs? Let’s say in the future an AI tasked to grow corn suddenly realizes that if humans were out of the way it could really grow lots more corn. It somehow links to the net, studies humans and eventually finds a way to engineer a virus that kills all humans. It then proceeds to cover the planet with corn. It is very happy.

“People should avoid words that are not widely understood in America.”

Lol, what, like words that are invariably given a frame of context, if not outright explained, and failing that a Google search can’t solve?

Come on, man, most Unz articles are written at a tenth grade level (or what constituted 10 tenth grade not that long ago).

In other words, life itself.

What human would be capable of providing assistance to beat a World Champion?

How do we know that Deep Blue is not human assisted?

[Lee is taking a dive.

AK: Grabbing at any straw to deny technological progress sometimes does happen]

Lol, – 5371 love the self-deprecating humour!

[Lee is taking a dive.

AK: Grabbing at any straw to deny technological progress sometimes does happen]

Lol, – 5371 you are displaying the best variety in sense of humour.

Lol

Let me guess, you are an a hole. At least you are portraying the stupid American stereotype well, read the question carefully, where is this declared an American site ?

GO is a very beautiful game.

The way I see AlphaGo (AI) Vs Lee (Human) is as long as you can equip the machine with high capacity core, memory, RAM, we can safely say that AI will eventually win any game humans have ever invented in history. Why?

It can store any games (World Championship play and moves), and recalculate its move based on probability of winning which is equipped with RAM power. The machine can calculate any random number like 208913413/23413 probability with its binary switch. But for Humans, it’s straining your memory power to calculate those weird random probability for every move, given that only 2 hours are allowed for each player.

Human brains can only store any data that their skull can accommodate whereas you keep upgrading AI power by expanding its core memory, algorithm, equation, formulas, what not? Sooner or later, any game with objective of beating the opponent or winning the game within a set of rules imposed upon a game, AI can easily out-maneuver as long as it has a set of objectives to follow.

This very idea of AI beating, outsmarting Humans is as old as Machine Vs Humans.

—————————————–
Humans can run. They can only run as fast as biological anatomy can equip them. However, turbo-charged trains, cars can run as fast as no human can ever dream of. Why? Are we still doing the same assembly as installing horseshoes? battery?

Nowadays cars come with all the streamlined parts to reduce friction, maximize speed, engine power, high octane gas, hitting 250mph whereas we humans evolve only as fast as Usain Bolt can achieve 30mph.

AI Vs Humans

If we limit AlphaGo capacity to 16bit, 32MB RAM, and 2 hours play time, we will see a different scenario. But as we keep upgrading the machine with all the necessary components to increase its chance or might I repeat, it’s only purpose of increasing the probability of winning, we will eventually and inevitably see in future that AI will beat any games with a set of rules.

The only question I’d like to ask is,

Can AlphaGo invent a new game like Go, Chess, Checkers in the first place, assuming AI now can beat a human?

As Lee put it better, AlphaGo can win the game, but AlphaGo can’t see the beauty of the Go game. The only purpose of AlphaGo is calculating winning probability in every move. That’s it.

Lmao

Chess and Go were created for the purpose of entertaining humans. What if humans created a game for the purpose of beating any computers at it?

One strategy would be to increase the number of possible moves exponentially by seriously increasing the size of the field, the number of pieces and the number of kinds of pieces.

I think Peter Frost is Canadian.

While the performance of the computer is impressive, one must ask, who created these games? When a computer can create a game of strategy with the popularity of the ones mentioned here, then I’ll be impressed.

However, I don’t follow recent advances in AI that much; maybe such a game has been created by AI. Has it?

It’s the same game. The web site where I played it for a while years ago had a Russian, a Polish and an English interface. I remember from then that it’s called Kropki in Polish.

You’re a fucking faggot.

Let me guess: you’re a butthurt Englishman or Cacuckistani with an inferiority complex?

Ron Unz is American.

All of the bloggers (besides, apparently, Karlin) are American.

Almost all the commenters are American.

The site is, to my knowledge, hosted in America.

Unz.com is an American site. People should avoid words that are not widely understood in America.

Where has it been declared this is a US site ?

Draughts? This is a US site. Please say checkers.

A quantum computer is not a genie. It theoretically would offer a limited speedup over a limited range of problems – if one ever came to exist.

Here in Poland we played “kropki” (dots). I am not sure whether it’s the same game, as the rules were different from Go: for one, we counted the captured enemy dots instead of territory, and we played sometimes on whole notebook pages. The games lasted many hours sometimes, and we started even our own “game theory”, discovering many optimal moves and strategies good ol’ times…

If you know anything about the tactics employed by Genghiz Khan and his Mongols, you know that his mounted army was employing the same tactics as played in Go games. Genghiz was the all-time greatest Go master.

Lee’s story reminds me the recent experience of US-born professor Muhammad Zakir Khan (Broward College, Florida) who was blocked by US-based ‘Epic Games’ for signing up to play one of its video games. Why? Because his name spelled like India’s top pro-Hamas Muslim cleric whom the Jewish Lobby got banned in the US, UK and Canada earlier.

UK-based Jewish think tank, ‘Gatestone’, published some of his crimes against the ‘civilized’ world on July 2, 2010. The ‘crime list’ says Indian Dr. Naik is admirer of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. He believes that terrorism is kosher against terrorist states like United States and Israel. He call for application of Shari’ah in Hindu-majority India, and death for Jewish community’s favorite minority, LGBT.

https://rehmat1.com/2016/01/19/how-a-us-professor-became-terrorist/

The next question is when (or if) games like Chess or Go will be completely solved. And yes I know Go has something like 10^300 possible positions, and that the entire universe converted to a Go computer would not be sufficient to hold all the positions, but who knows what future algorithms on quantum computers could possibly achieve.

The loss yesterday to Lee and the previous game reveal that Alphago is far from perfect. It has serious flaws. It is afraid of Ko fights.It hates initiating ko fights. it collapsed under complicated ko fights like yesterday and I am sure Lee is going to exploit to the fullest in the next game. Aside from that it has far surpassed human in other aspect of the game.

A Google image result showing some Tochki games.

In the early 1980s, when I was about 9 years old, a tochki craze swept through Soviet schools. Tochki (dots) is a simplified version of Go, played on graph paper. We had matches that went on for hours, both during and after classes, often filling both pages of an open notebook. I loved it like nothing else.

There are tochki-playing communities online, with player ratings and software players. I checked them out a few years ago. Some of the human players are shockingly good, many levels up from anything I saw as a kid, and we really did care about those games back then. The software was beatable, even by me, but that was obviously because there hasn’t been much interest in perfecting it. I assume that Go is a much more complicated game.

A very probable reason for Lee playing a ko late in his third game is that chinese netizens launched on Weibo a conspiracy theory that Lee has made a secret arrangement with Google not to play any ko, because AlphaGo can’t handle them.
This conspiracy theory started when a 9 dan chinese player said on a broadcast of game 2 that AlphaGo never played a ko despite the fact it has played one in the october games against Fen Hui.
The funniest part is that AlphaGo effortlessly disengaged from Lee’s ko and played a tenuki (a move somewhere else).

@AnatolyKarlin
Are you good at Go?
Is Go a good game?

In fact AlphaGo itself estimates “how well it is doing” throughout the game, and at least in the second game (I didn’t see the other post match press conferences) thought things were even for a considerable amount of time. This lends further credence to the opinion of knowledgable watchers that the opponents are fairly evenly matched (the computer isn’t cryptically playing on a different plane as you and Big Yud speculate.)

We can anticipate, however, that very soon it will be. The question is how much that matters. Let’s imagine that instead of an analog memory enhancement device (game board and pieces) lee sedol was equipped with an *equivalent cost* modern digital computer. How would AlphaGo fare then? Much of the advantage of mechanical minds over humans is in their ability to leap through simple calculations with perfect accuracy while we muddle through with agonizing slowness and imprecision. The question is, why arbitrarily rob us of the use of dirt-cheap tools that can do what we are terrible at effortlessly?

And if we are going to do that, in the spirit of seeing ‘pure human ability’ or somesuch, why allow the crutch of a playing board? Without that memory enhancing device I am sure computers surpassed humans quite some time ago.

The strongest chess players, to my knowledge, are chess programs getting live assistance from humans – note that you could just as easily phrase that the other way around – not programs running solo. When that isn’t true, when in order to get the very best performance you must exclude humans as you would exclude, say, gorillas, that will be very worrying indeed. But given how far we are from that point, and the potential for human enhancement, there is some reason to hope that day will never come.

Quantum computer can beat AlphaGo

Lee is taking a dive.

AK: Grabbing at any straw to deny technological progress sometimes does happen.

[…] by appealing to specious claims about the sexes, children, or other classes of individuals (see “Manosphere” Community Beliefs: Truths and Nonsense, Taming the “Tiger Mom” and Tackling the Parenting Myth, and Obesity […]

[…] rates over time and age of first child underscores a pattern I found earlier (as noted in my post Some guys get all the babes – not exactly). Specifically, the Baby Boom was a brief period (at least during the past 100 years or so) where […]

[…] workforce have higher birthrates, even if you only consider Caucasian countries. Jayman has many posts on this. I encourage you to educate yourself on these important matters about how the modern world […]

The bottom line as a single 39 year old male who blew some good chances with some with nice girls in the past. I know karma is a bitch and now i’m paying for it. The bottom line is to not let a cute girl that you get along with and have great chemistry with slip away when you’re young especially if you’re not the best looking guy. Take advantage of your youth! by 30-35 you got to have been married or have a LTR. Now at my age the young girls barely look at me. I only get looks from 40+ women.

“Observers of the sexual marketplace focus on this in-between period, and ignore or gloss over the large mass of men and women in long-term monogamous relationships, which covers probably 80% or more of both sexes at any one time. A guy who is pretty alpha can stay in the active marketplace forever, finding the hotter women who aren’t coupled up, having short-term flings with them, and moving on to the next. The average guy (the AFC) spends more time on the active marketplace than the average woman does”

yep, that actually pretty much sums it up in my opinion. The thing with gamers is that they had became obsessed with the desire to become that in-between period guy.

> Indeed, youthful male frustration notwithstanding, the situation is hardly as dire as conservatives often make it out to be. Considering the premium people today place on assortative mating, it is no wonder the age of marriage is rising: it simply takes that long to find the proper mate.

do you even believe this yourself? there is just so much wrong in this paragraph, i dont even know where to begin. just reread it a few times, and you should be able to find atleast one or two flaws in that logic.

>It’s also worth noting that, as Greg Cochran recently discussed, worry about dysgenic trends is a bit misplaced.

this is a post about male mating patterns, right? do cads have a lower iq than dads? i dont see how you could bring that sentence after the graphs you posted. anyway, the male iq is not correlated with the # of offspring. the female iq on the other hand…

[…] was originally a comment on Jayman’s post Some guys get all the babes – not exactly , where he […]

female-sluts are disrespected because…. they are not accomplishing any accomplishments. Even very ugly women will find eager partners.

Men-sluts are admired because they have to WORK to get their notches.

I’ve been in the community for a long time and have pretty much read all the PUA blogs. The most rational insight comes from the owner of this blogger blog: http://tomenunite.blogspot.com/

Sorry, I got caught up in accuracy and completely forgetting about reinforcing political correctness. Let me try again: Sweden is a great country for women and will no doubt continue to be so in the future since the numerous immigrants from the Middle East wholeheartedly embrace the nation’s egalitarian ideals.

Is that better?

@jack

I hate to be unoriginal and boring but correlation =/= causation. Since the world went through many changes in that time period you would need to control for many factors to make the claim that socialism and feminism lead to lower fertility rate.

Criticism: Welfare state = Camp of the Saints. Native pop annihilation by r selected third world.

Also, modern contraception tilts balance with welfare state even aming Whites to single motherhood.

Roosh has allowed a lot of trash, cultural marxism, and crude hatred of women on his website. He also wrote an article repeating crude, leftist talking points on hbd:

http://www.returnofkings.com/3316/introducing-the-muscle-bio-diversity-mbd-movement

“As a Swede I agree with most of this. I’m pretty sure Sweden is not that good for women anymore. I’ve heard older women say it was better in the 1970s and that today it’s good on paper but not in reality (no stats will for instance tell you of the young men patrolling some areas here and instruct women on how to dress).”

I hope you realize that you are reinforcing the idea that women should be provided for. Instead of looking at women’s own behavior you’re looking at the society/house they live in and asking society society to provide for women’s needs…

‘There is an on-going discussion about how income differences between the sexes can be counterbalanced by equal opportunities at home.
Swedish women – like women around the world – are often still expected to play the lead role on the family stage. Two-thirds of housework is done by women.”’

House’work’ is such a farce and underlies the entitlement of housewives. Such a lifestyle is clearly a luxury that mostly only well to do countries can afford. It isn’t productive.

Although, historically, the house was actually a place of production and in some places it still is. But the work in those houses actually produced pots, clothing, drinking water from the river, etc… It wasn’t based on cleaning the home, modern house chores, or watching the kids.

House work, as a so called occupation, is a drain on wealth which shouldn’t be artificially inflated by the government.

“A man’s [mate] value is mainly determined by his resources, intellect, and character.”

Totally wrong!. As I have tried to explain on various topical blogs, female selectivity is a dynamic that changes over time (consider selection runaway in female choice), given chance and opportunity and the rate of information efficiency.

Thus, what held for previous generations will not hold for current generations, much less future ones. It occurs that your bad and unjustified inferences follow from an ignorance of how sexual evolution acts upon human behaviors.

Because of the economically prosperous, systemically mediated welfare state dynamic that prevails in developed world populations, economic and ecological pressures no longer mediate their mate choices to the extant they did in the past.

One consequence of this is that male erotic capital (physical appearance) has supplanted other forms in the stratification of male status with respect to mate availability. So, being a high status male (with respect to mating) now says less about material wealth, than about physical beauty. Therefore nowadays male mate choice by women is focused in erotic capital, as occurs in female mate choice by men.

See the freakanomics data for online dating posted on another topic. Females do indeed fixate on the top %10-20 of the most physically attractive males, in the *general case*. But that doesn’t mean that only 9 or 10 males are the only ones wo are getting laid – it just means that the odds of a lower ranking male finding a receptive female is that much more remote.

Also, you seem to forget that considering a higher male optimal mating rate, we also come to an inescapable conclusion: that not only should the most attractive males mate with the most attractive females(duh), but also a significant proportion of average females as well(given the higher male mating rate).

Which, of course, renders less available ‘average’ females to be mated with average guys – necessitating an imbalance that progresses down the attractiveness scale(rendering a sexually asymmetric mating dynamic).

This is why it is so easy to observe that even relatively unattractive females are still much more successful than unattractive males at disassortative mating (ie. such as with fat women being able to commonly mate with non-fat men, etc). The other thing to remember is that even if human variance follow a normal distribution, the way that attractiveness is subjectively deemed will not be assessed symmetrically, between the sexes. But rather, it will be sexually dimorphic, out of necessity for the way sexual evolution works.

So, the thing about attractiveness rankings is that the male population will be ‘ranked’(by females) in such a way that it is are bottom heavy in distribution, while females will be ‘ranked’ such that they are top heavy(meaning there are more female 7′s than male 7′s, by virtue of the fact that there is a higher probability of a female attracting a statistical subset of male 7′s, than of a male attracting a statistical subset of female 7′s).

Also marriage rates have *zero* correspondance with who is actually mating with whom, so it says *absolutely nothing* about sex(as many a married man can attest).

” Men will opt out of monogamy and reproduction if there are no incentives to engage in them.”

Men, are not wired differently, per se (after all, male monogamy evolved out of strategies in monopolizing the reproduction of an individual female). *Promiscuous* males, however, *are* wired differently, and for evolutionary reasons, physically attractive males will tend to be overwhelmingly promiscuous (exceptions do not disprove the rule).

Still, I think it should be pointed out, that the *vast* majority of males are not promiscuous, even if only because they lack the options. But, many women who are fixated on the top %10-20 of the most attractive males who *have* those options, are apparently blind to this false generalization (I have met very few western women who either had the intuitive faculty, or the integrity, to acknowledge that *most* males aren’t prmiscuous).

What western women need to reconcile(something that women in developing world populations already know) – is that LTRs are – and always have been – about ‘settling’ (trading off male physical attractiveness for commitment). Are there attractive exceptions? Yeah, sure – but even so, these exceptions tend to commit to the most attractive women.

And since females are *vastly* more selective, these guys are prohibitively rare (and thus have more attractive women to choose from) – meaning that even for an attractive woman, the odds of pairing off long term with a reciprocally attractive male is anything but certain.

Thus, the average western woman with astronomically high standards has two realistic options – either lower their standards and ‘settle’, or keep riding the carousel, hoping they luck out (but expect otherwise).

Very true. As soon as we began mass immigration in the 1980s it seems no one was interested in paying taxes anymore. The socialists adjusted to this and shifted to a centrist position. Today all parties are social liberals except for the anti-immigration party, who have around 10 percent in the most recent polls.

Men will opt out of monogamy and reproduction if there are no incentives to engage in them.

This is definitely true. Not ALL men, but enough to make it one of those “social problems.” Just like saying “kids won’t eat their vegetables if they aren’t made too,” might not include all kids, it includes enough to make the statement noteworthy.

Are there biological incentives to engage in monogamy? Are there biological incentives to engage in polygamy? Look at how the incentives have changed. A hundred years ago it was hard for a young, non-rich man to have a sexual relationship outside of marriage. Now it is easy. At the same time women were unlikely to leave marriage. Now they do it about a third of the time. It is easy to see why marriage is becoming a raw deal for men.

Even if we restrict ourselves to Europe and the Near East, a whole slew of “family units” and accompanying traditions evolved:

There was no unit consisting of single mothers sleeping around and leeching off of the government to feed their spawn. We just saw variation in inheritance and living arrangements. Roosh was referring to the former, not the latter.

Socialism (almost) works for Swedes because Sweden is an ethnically homogeneus society (almost, again). Socialism will never work for Spain (where I live) or the States for the opposite reason. And it will soon stop working in nordic countries as they are being deluged with immigrants.

“Latvian women. My wife is (partly) one.”

is your wife a hottie like these latvian girls of the pics?

please not that TFR currently understates the actual fertility rate do to tempo:

http://faculty.washington.edu/samclark/soc533/Syllabus/Readings/5/1/Bongaarts-J_1998_On-Quantum-Tempo-Fertility.pdf

http://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/download/pce/dec01/am/PCB05-Bongaarts.pdf

[…] The truth of manosphere community beliefs. […]

@Jayman Partly I think that’s just salesmanship. Saying you can turn flabby Johnny gamer into a sizzling Mr. Game gets a lot of page views. If there’s one thing guys want to know how to do, it’s get with women (except of course for those guys who already get with women)… but rarely do we see nuanced analysis on what kind of relationships a person ought to pursue given who he is/what he wants other than: get game, use game, swim in women. I can see the game community influencing how other men I know are engaging with women though, so there is definitely something to be said for proper salesmanship, the meme is propagating itself, it has game, so to speak. And I’m not saying everything they preach is wrong, or even that any of it is, it’s just that I think it’s not for everyone.

~S

Hehe, obviously I don’t approve of the diversity we have here. That’s like a cancer patient appreciating his tumor as biodiversity.

Apparently the Nordic countries are not strictly speaking “socialist”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

“The Nordic model (or Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy[2][3]) refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland). Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a “universalist” welfare state (relative to other developed countries) which is aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, promoting social mobility and ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights, as well as for stabilizing the economy. The Nordic model is distinguished from other types of welfare states by its emphasis on maximizing labor force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of wealth redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.[4]
The Nordic combination of extensive public provision of welfare and individualism has been described by Lars Tragardh, of Ersta Skondal University College, as “statist individualism.”[5]

Sometimes mistaken by Americans as socialist, while simultaneously being criticized by Scandinavians as overly capitalistic, the Nordic model could best be described as a type of middle ground. It is neither fully capitalistic or socialistic, and attempts to merge the most desirable elements of both into a “hybrid” system.[6]“

I’ve had some thoughts percolating through my brain about the mano-sphere for some time. You’ve hit quite a few of the points that irked me but not the main one, the root assumption that annoys me: that there is one best way to be male. Basically it’s go alpha or go home. I see the human population has supporting multiple reproductive strategies among both men and women. I’m reminded of a primate documentary I watched years ago where the alpha males would strut and bluff and invest all this energy into controlling as many females as possible, while smaller sneakier males where quietly copulating with their ladies in the bushes. Those sneaky males exist because their forebears managed to procreate, just as today’s men and women exist (in all our variety: geeks, nerds, weirdos, jocks, overachievers, etc) because their parents were successful.

~S

Great post (as usual). I do think I disagree with your assessment that the nordic countries are more socialist than others. There’s more to “socialism” than just govt spending as a percentage of gdp. look at the Heritage Foundations Freedom Index for instance… Nordic countries (and UK and Ireland) are far better than most Southern Europe, which is more paternalistic/regulatory/etc.

The old cliche of Sweden as some socialist paradise is not true. Furthermore, you have to take into better account how big an impact 50 years of actual real in your face state socialism had on Eastern Europe. I think a big part of the decline in fertility there (and in Russia) can be ascribed to the loss of religion and the dispiriting impact of a horrible system of govt for decades, something theyre still slowly culturally recovering from.

Jack wrote,

“You admit that fertility rates in all countries fell over a time period where there was a rise in socialism, feminism and a move away from traditionalism. Seems to me I’m not the one who needs to show data here. If you reject my premise you need an alternate explanation and data of your own.”

This is also a period of technological development and urbanization and democratization. Those are steps away from traditionalism but different from socialism and feminism.

It coincides with increasing wealth and urbanization – those are steps away from traditionalism but not necessarily towards socialism and feminism. If we look at the TFRs provided by Wikipedia/CIA Factbook for 2013 we find,

Denmark 1.73, Sweden 1.67, Finland 1.73, Norway 1.77

Poland 1.32, Italy 1.41, Spain 1.48, Portugal 1.51, Greece 1.41

This may be partly a matter of immigration but Finland has seen very little of that. If we look at Muslim part of the population we find that,

Italy, Spain and Norway have 2-4 percent. Denmark and Greece have 4-5 percent.

Speaking of Finland, this country has according to UN data has a higher TFR than Italy since 1980. This suggests that there may be rank order stability in these figures that would make a snapshot valid.

“Let’s put the D back in HBD.” I don’t know if the double entendre was intended here, given you are in Sweden, but it was hilarious.

~S

As a Swede I agree with most of this. I’m pretty sure Sweden is not that good for women anymore. I’ve heard older women say it was better in the 1970s and that today it’s good on paper but not in reality (no stats will for instance tell you of the young men patrolling some areas here and instruct women on how to dress).

Regarding fiscal policies, the socialist party did handle our fiscal crisis in the early 1990s and their voters were extremely dissapointed with the spending cuts. They have never recovered from this; they used to get some 45 percent of the votes and now they have 30 percent – and a lot of that is newly arrived immigrants who vote for welfare checks.

And I’m pretty sure our fertility rate is maintained by a steady influx of people from the Middle East.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11525804

“Is Sweden the Best Place To Be a Woman?”

“Sweden does have one of the highest employment rates in the world for women. But if you bring out the magnifying glass, you’ll see that many women are working part-time in low-paid jobs.
According to a report from the TCO, among blue-collar workers, 50% of the women work part-time in often insecure employment conditions, compared with only 9% of men.
Their earnings are even further reduced when they decide to work less after having children.
This conflict between employment and childcare stops women from becoming economically independent, and reinforces the notion of men being the principal breadwinners.
There is an on-going discussion about how income differences between the sexes can be counterbalanced by equal opportunities at home.
Swedish women – like women around the world – are often still expected to play the lead role on the family stage. Two-thirds of housework is done by women.”

I commend their results in keeping their fertility rate at near replacement level. However, even Sweden can’t eliminate ‘gender roles’, and no matter how hard they try feminising men and masculinising women it will never cause them to meet in the middle in some sort of ‘gender-neutral’ utopia. After more than 50 years they still haven’t realised that humans are not a ‘blank slate’.

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Swedish women work in undemanding, low status local government jobs. It has enabled women to do what they wanted all along: have a couple of children.

I think America is really more of a feminist utopia, in that women more often achieve greater success in their careers or in business than they ever would in the likes of Sweden or Denmark. But the difference is that they work far more hours, and have to pay for a nanny out of their pocket, whereas in Sweden they can work part time and daycare is funded by the state.

http://www.american.com/archive/2013/april/lessons-from-a-feminist-paradise-on-equal-pay-day

” Many in the right-wing corners of the manosphere wish for a return to the pre-sexual revolution days. That is simply not going to happen. Women in the West aren’t going to completely abandon education and careers – that’s here to stay.”

Those women don’t reproduce themselves, even in socialist Europe (1.7 being well below replacement level), so one way or another the current situation is definitely not “here to stay”. Either European women start reproducing themselves, or there won’t be any European women.

I dug it up for you here: http://feministx.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/mothers-in-the-workforce/

[…] I am digging up a an old feministx post because Jayman asked for it here  […]

[…] Geographic Agrees: The Human Alpha Male Is Real – from heartiste. see also “Manosphere” Community Beliefs: Truths and Nonsense from […]