> "This series taught me that rather than trying to imitate AI, it is far more important to build the board according to my own style."
It's never made sense to me that so many go players study AI go play in the hope of emulating it in a human game. We're not machines. We can't do thousands of Monte Carlo tree searches per second.
They study it because it has done things that humans had long assumed were bad until AI proved otherwise. The conceptual knowledge has been valuable at the top level.
At least when it comes to chess, Magnus Carlsen has stated multiple times that he's been inspired by AlphaZero and adjusted his own style of play after studying its games.
> It's never made sense to me that so many go players study AI go play in the hope of emulating it in a human game.
> We're not machines. We can't do thousands of Monte Carlo tree searches per second.
You sound so sure of that, but I have seen people catch a ball, and I am not so sure that any artificial person should be any more aware of the tremendous maths they are "solving"
From the perspective of a game with far fewer rules, "trying to imitate AI" might not mean anything like what you are thinking.
If you have an LLM add 2+2, it is doing a tremendous number of additions and multiplications it doesn't have to, same as us, and I am not sure the LLM can answer any more questions about that process than we can about ourselves.
It's never made sense to me that so many go players study AI go play in the hope of emulating it in a human game. We're not machines. We can't do thousands of Monte Carlo tree searches per second.