[probably_wrong]

There are several activities right now that people keep doing despite machines being better suited: martial arts (and more in point, HEMA[1]), handicrafts, several Olympic sports. Why would anyone attempt to run a marathon under two hours, when any car can do it in 30 minutes?

I think the answer lies less in "I will be the absolute best", and more along the lines of "I will do it better than anyone before me". And sometimes, even "I will do my best" is an excellent reason for doing things.

I don't think Go players were in it due to a need for expertise that machines could not fulfill until now. And if people nowadays keep practicing with swords several centuries after the invention of firearms, Go players will do just fine.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_European_martial_ar...

[b6]

> And sometimes, even "I will do my best" is an excellent reason for doing things.

Man, I think this is absolutely it. I feel very sorry for someone who would pin their happiness on being the best in the world. It may not be within your ability! I simply cannot run faster than Usain Bolt. So that's not the game! The game is just to do my best.

[matt4077]

It does feel like there's a difference–maybe Go and Chess are just so much closer to what defines humanity than any physical sports?

[binarymax]

Yes and physical prowess was never dominated by humans anyway. We are surrounded by creatures which can fly and swim and sprint far better than any human ever could. But our minds is what separates us from the beasts. We've never been second place in the thought competition.

[bad_user]

Actually, we are pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon

[catshirt]

pretty good at consistently losing to horses in running marathons? can't say i'm surprised.

[ufmace]

Interestingly, it looks like the distance for this contest was shortened from a standard marathon to make it "more competitive". I wonder if anyone's explored the results at different distances? Perhaps the human would have a bigger advantage at longer distances. I'm not sure why they'd shorten the distance for the humans - a marathon is a standard distance that at least hundreds of thousands of people all over the world run just for fun. There even seems to be a pretty big community of ultra-marathoners that compete at distances several times greater than marathons, and over rough terrain too.

[Cyphase]

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/06/long...

"There's no denying it—our kind started substituting brains for brawn long ago, and it shows: We can't begin to compete with animals when it comes to the raw ingredients of athletic prowess. Yet being the absurdly self-enthralled species we are, we crowd into arenas and stadiums to marvel at our pathetic physical abilities as if they were something special. But there is one exception to our general paltriness: We're the right honorable kings and queens of the planet when it comes to long-distance running."

[dmoy]

RE long distance running:

Actually sled dogs way outpace humans at long distance running. Like they can do a marathon a day for a week straight, while pulling a sled.

Humans are second place tho I think.

[Cyphase]

Here's a relevant portion of the linked article, particularly the last bit about Huskies:

> But what most sets us apart as runners is that we’re really cool—we naked apes are champion sweaters and can dissipate body heat faster than any other large mammal. Our main rivals for the endurance-running crown fall into two groups: migratory ungulates, such as horses and wildebeest, and social carnivores, such as dogs and hyenas. They can easily out-sprint us by galloping. But none can gallop very far without overheating—they largely rely on panting to keep cool, and they can't pant when galloping, for panting involves taking very rapid, shallow breaths that would interfere with respiration when running. Dogs can gallop for only about 10 to 15 minutes before reverting to a trot, and so their distance-running speed tops out at about 3.8 meters per second. Horses' average distance-running speed is 5.8 meters per second—a canter. Wildebeests’ is 5.1 meters per second.

> Elite human runners, however, can sustain speeds up to 6.5 meters per second. Even run-of-the-mill joggers typically do between 3.2 and 4.2 meters per second, which means they can outrun dogs at distances greater than two kilometers.

> Our "sustainable distance" is also hard to beat. African hunting dogs typically travel an average of 10 kilometers a day. Wolves and hyenas tend to go about 14 and 19 kilometers, respectively. In repeated distance runs, horses can cover about 20 kilometers a day. Vast throngs of human runners, by comparison, routinely run 42.2-kilometer marathons in just a few hours, and each year tens of thousands of people complete ultra-marathons of 100 kilometers and longer. (A few animals can match that under special circumstances. Huskies can trot up to 100 kilometers in Arctic conditions when forced to by people. But in warmer climes—no way.)

[namarie]

Aren't we actually better at endurance running than any other animal?

[tambourine_man]

Seems sled dogs beat us on this one:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=HDG4GSypcIE

[maga]

Yet again we have created something to outdo us.

[hyperbovine]

DeepMind could do it better.

[natch]

Human plus bicycle is the most efficient.

Which may seem like a snide point (and a ripoff of Steve Jobs) but seriously it hints at where things could go with AI.

[agildehaus]

I think so. It's all about heat regulation: we have far more sweat glands than any other species, even our ape ancestors.

[nightcracker]

Land animal, I believe so, yes.

But an albatros would cover much more ground much more efficiently than us.

[nickpsecurity]

Our superhumans are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Karnazes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon

[theptip]

I think there is something to this line of reasoning, but I'm not sure we have to get that abstract.

I suspect this stems from the fact that each game imposes its own set of artificial restrictions. Of course you don't ride a horse in a footrace; that's not the game. Just as you don't confer with your team of experts in a Go game. A game is only given meaning by the artificial restrictions it defines.

Within the bounds of the rules of the footrace, the game is still competitive for humans; currently this is somewhat tautologically so. (Though I think we will have a similar conversation to this when human cyborgs can out-compete unmodified humans [1]). The fact that there are things faster than a human outside of the bounds of the game is irrelevant.

In Go, within the bounds of the rules of the game, humanity cannot compete at the highest level any more. I see that as a big difference.

[1]: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/seriously-d...

[orthoganol]

At the same time martial arts in the age of firearms has become relegated to the fringe, and running in the age of automobiles (probably even starting with the age of horses) is also kind of silly to take too seriously, and few people care outside of a couple days every four years, if even.

It's kind of like what happened to painting when the era of photography began.

Machines taking over human disciplines still kills the disciplines, some may just not be aware how this type of death works.

That said, I disagree with most here in that I don't think machines are anywhere close to taking over creative human disciplines that don't follow incredibly specific rules, like boardgames.

[pps43]

> martial arts in the age of firearms has become relegated to the fringe

But also new martial arts appeared such as IPSC or 3Gun.

> running in the age of automobiles

There's Formula 1 and other motor sports that are pretty popular.

> Machines taking over human disciplines still kills the disciplines

It kills some and gives birth to others.

[grzm]

I understand your point in that there are martial arts that incorporate modern weapons. Probably a nit, though I'd consider 3-gun and IPSC sports or events rather than arts themselves. Similar to how people can practice and train in different martial arts, but when they compete there are specific rules they need to follow depending on the event they're participating in.

[pps43]

Like other martial arts, shooting sports have to be different from actual combat to avoid actually killing the participants. Some (e.g., paintball or tank biathlon) are more realistic than others (e.g., sumo).

[grzm]

Right. The distinction I'm making is between the training and what is done in the sporting events. People taking self defense courses which incorporate aspects of martial arts learn and practice some techniques which are not allowed or advantageous in a sporting event.

[rasz]

>martial arts

look into what happened to popularity of most bullshido martial arts after UFC (MMA) blew up.

[arcticfox]

Your comparison seems a little off. Swordplay != gunplay, they're different games. Getting run over by a tank != judo, they're different games. There is a reason those games / martial arts / races have rules.

Whereas in Go, everyone's playing the same game by the same rules, the machines are just way better at it.

[hosh]

It is less a matter of being better than everyonr else out there and more about the internal transformation that takes place. The more I had trained in martial arts and learned Sun Tzu (tldr: if you are not cheating, you are not trying hard enough), the more I realized that I did not really care that much for the narratives that used to drive me to train.

All the traditional martial arts went through that kind of identity crises. I have a friend who was ex military, practiced xingyi with me and Aikido; he tells me, in this day and age of drones, the idea that you are a walking badass because you know king fu is absurd. If that is the case, why keep going? My personal answer is that it has become about prevailing over myself (not about defeating others) ... and because it is fun.

The reactions among the Go world seems varied. Fan Hui said he learned a lot, and his own workd ranking shot up. After the first match, Ke Jie said he felt bitter, that these are going to be the last games he play against an AI. Yet he agreed to help Deepmind develop an analysis tool. Michael Redmond (one of the commentators) seems really excited in both the Lee Sedol matches and Ke Jie matches. A lot of Go pro players seems to feel more excited, not less, that AlphaGo is opening up possibilities. That the game has even furthur depths to explore.

For myself, I know I will never reach anywhere near the pro dan ranks in Go; I am not even sure I will reach the amature dan ranks. The journey to get where I am at, playing very informally, has helped me a lot with many other parts of my life. One of the biggest influences was practicing life-or-death and learning how my emotions affect my play. When I first started, I used to play moves because it felt safe, not because it was safe. Or I would respond locally because not doing so felt insecure. Reading through those positions helped me to not only read through what is there and the read my arising emotions at the time, that started to seep in other parts of my life. For example, my software programming style started changing. Lessons learned from making good shapes, capture races, living by making two eyes, false eyes -- all basic double-digit kyu stuff -- found their way into how I structure code, how to code less defensively, and a sharpening of my mental focus to read code that is actually there, not just what I think is there.

That change in myself is, I think, a better fruit of my effort.

[vitro]

And meditation, that some may put under marital arts, but I would put it alone as a thread that goes through everything. Is it possible that machines will meditate one day? I don't know, but definitely we may need their compassion.