|
|
|
|
|
|
by morelisp
2123 days ago
|
|
|
I think this might hit on the key as to why demand for teaching is dropping even though AIs don't really replace good teaching: > Lee seems to combine these two with the silent assumption that the professionals’ goal is to strive for the ‘highest possible level of go’, which is no longer possible because the ai cannot be beat; incidentally, Lee Sedol remarked something similar when he announced his retirement. To me, on the other hand, it seems like nothing has changed because I have always reached for the ‘highest possible personal level of go’, and this should be the same for most players who are not near the top of the world. Perhaps it has less to do with being at "the top of the world" and more to do with the role of the game in the broader culture. If what attracts you is not just your personal drive to improve, but the sense of overall societal contribution, that will surely wane if training goes towards study of AI rather than active research in play. On the other hand in the US/Europe such a thing hardly exists at all even for professional players. Maybe a comparison point: What happened to voice and instrument lessons once recorded music became commonplace? In the fairly recent past any social group that wanted to listen to decent music must have had a member who was at least a slightly-above-average musician; and once they didn't need that anymore, that skill may have significantly dropped in social standing. That doesn't mean no one takes lessons anymore, but it seems like the number would have greatly reduced. (On the other hand, the median interest level and drive among people taking lessons probably increased.) (Does that mean the go world is going to have to find its equivalent of Kurt Cobain to get lessons started again?) |
|
|