A question: Should we take it as "a computer beating a human" or "developers beating a Go player"?
I had this discussion with my friends and we have opposite opinions.
It should be "a computer beating the human" in my opinion. It's just like parents bathing in the success of their offspring. Yes, they can be proud, but no, they didn't achieve the "win" themselves.
If the developers behind AlphaGo did the same calculations with pen and paper as they sat across from the human player, would that be them achieving the win themselves? If so, why does having an automated piece of paper change that?
"It's just like parents bathing in the success of their offspring."
There is no offspring here. There is a set of calculations, written by some people.
If a parent watches their child win a game, would that be them achieving the win themselves? If so, why does having nine months of creation time and ten years of training time change that?
There is no child here. There is a deterministic set of calculations. The developers created a deterministic set of calculations, and then executed those calculations.
AlphaGo is not a child. AlphaGo is a set of deterministic calculations, defined and created by some people. Your question about humans and their children is irrelevant. There is no child here.
In this flawed analogy, the "parents" are the developers, and the "child" is a set of calculations. If someone wrote down a set of calculations, and then executed those calculations and won, is it right to say that the person who wrote down those calculations won? I suggest that it is.