[backpropaganda]

> Can a pro + alphaGo beat AlphaGo consistently? if so, it means humans still have something of an identity.

Seems like a hard bet. The human professionals weren't trained to pair with machines to beat other machines. I don't think a human-only skill can even exist due to the nature of the game. Ultimately, each state of the board has a value and this value is estimable using reinforcement learning. Games where a state doesn't have a quantifiable value is where humans could shine. Such games however are not objectively decidable, such as fine arts like painting.

[conanbatt]

>Seems like a hard bet. The human professionals weren't trained to pair with machines to beat other machines. I don't think a human-only skill can even exist due to the nature of the game

The point is to find that out !

Also, Go has an intricate relationship between strength and beauty. Strong go tends to be beautiful. Does our capacity to perceive beauty give us a leg up on AlphaGo?

[taneq]

Do you not think that you see strong Go moves as beautiful because they're strong, rather than the other way around? Take AlphaGo's unexpected move in the first tournament - no-one thought it was beautiful, just weird, until it played out.

[conanbatt]

Its an open question. What is beauty after all...

[robrenaud]

TBH, it's interesting reading your posts. You talk much more like a poet than a mathematician. This is surprising to me when talking advanced play in a strategic game.

[oconnor663]

There's a strong precedent for this in chess, though. I think human + computer is reliably stronger than just computer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess

[nopinsight]

That was true until a few years ago. Now humans cannot add value to computer chess programs and only slow them down. Implications for future economy and job markets are worth pondering.

http://www.businessinsider.com/computers-beating-humans-at-a...

[oconnor663]

Oh good to know!