Re: [Computer-go] AI Driving Cars

[Mark Goldfain]

Perhaps you did not hear about the fatal Tesla crash in Florida on 05/07/16?
   
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/01/business/inside-tesla-accident.html
Or the fatal crash in China of a Tesla on 01/16/16, which only got reported in 
the news around September?
   
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/business/fatal-tesla-crash-in-china-involved-autopilot-government-tv-says.html
Frankly, there has not been a lot of coverage of these 2 events.

 -- Mark

| Message: 6
| Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 21:34:27 +
| From: Nick Wedd
| To:computer-go@computer-go.org
| Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Our Silicon Overlord
| Message-ID:
|   
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
|
| The first time someone's killed by an AI-controlled vehicle, you can be
| sure it'll be world news. That's how journalism works.
|
| Nick
 

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Our Silicon Overlord

[Álvaro Begué]

If you are killed by an AI-driven car, the manufacturer will use the case
to improve the algorithm and make sure that this type of death never
happens again. Unfortunately a death by a drunk driver doesn't seem to
teach anyone anything and will keep happening as long as people need to
drive and alcoholism exists.



On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira 
wrote:

> Well, I don't know what is the likelihood of being hit by drunk drivers
> or AI driven cars, but if it were the same I'd prefer to have drunk
> drivers. Drunk drivers you can understand: you can improve your chances
> by making yourself more visible, do not jump from beyond obstacles, be
> more careful when crossing or not crossing before they actually stop. A
> failure in an AI car seems much more unpredictable.
>
> Gonçalo
>
> On 07/01/2017 21:24, Xavier Combelle wrote:
> >
> >> ...this is a major objective. E.g., we do not want AI driven cars
> >> working right most of the time but sometimes killing people because
> >> the AI faces situations (such as a local sand storm or a painting on
> >> the street with a fake landscape or fake human being) outside its
> >> current training and reading.
> > currently I don't like to be killed by a drunk driver, and to my opinion
> > it is very more likely to happen than an AI killing me because a mistake
> > in programming (I know, it is not the point of view of most of people
> > which want a perfect AI with zero dead and not an AI which would reduce
> > the death on road by a factor 100)
> > ___
> > Computer-go mailing list
> > Computer-go@computer-go.org
> > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> >
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Our Silicon Overlord

[Xavier Combelle]

It already happened
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/tesla-autopilot-death-self-driving-car-elon-musk


Le 07/01/2017 à 22:34, Nick Wedd a écrit :
> The first time someone's killed by an AI-controlled vehicle, you can
> be sure it'll be world news. That's how journalism works.
>
> Nick
>
> On 7 January 2017 at 21:24, Xavier Combelle  > wrote:
>
>
> > ...this is a major objective. E.g., we do not want AI driven cars
> > working right most of the time but sometimes killing people because
> > the AI faces situations (such as a local sand storm or a painting on
> > the street with a fake landscape or fake human being) outside its
> > current training and reading.
> currently I don't like to be killed by a drunk driver, and to my
> opinion
> it is very more likely to happen than an AI killing me because a
> mistake
> in programming (I know, it is not the point of view of most of people
> which want a perfect AI with zero dead and not an AI which would
> reduce
> the death on road by a factor 100)
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org 
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> 
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Nick Wedd  mapr...@gmail.com 
>
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Our Silicon Overlord

[Xavier Combelle]

All the point, is that there is very little chance that you are more likely
to dead by an AI driven than a human driven as the expectation set to
AI driven is at least one order of magnitude higher than human one
before there is any hope that AI would be authorized (Actually the real
expectation is AI would be responsible of zero death)

Le 07/01/2017 à 22:35, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira a écrit :
> Well, I don't know what is the likelihood of being hit by drunk drivers
> or AI driven cars, but if it were the same I'd prefer to have drunk
> drivers. Drunk drivers you can understand: you can improve your chances
> by making yourself more visible, do not jump from beyond obstacles, be
> more careful when crossing or not crossing before they actually stop. A
> failure in an AI car seems much more unpredictable.
>
> Gonçalo
>
> On 07/01/2017 21:24, Xavier Combelle wrote:
>>> ...this is a major objective. E.g., we do not want AI driven cars
>>> working right most of the time but sometimes killing people because
>>> the AI faces situations (such as a local sand storm or a painting on
>>> the street with a fake landscape or fake human being) outside its
>>> current training and reading. 
>> currently I don't like to be killed by a drunk driver, and to my opinion
>> it is very more likely to happen than an AI killing me because a mistake
>> in programming (I know, it is not the point of view of most of people
>> which want a perfect AI with zero dead and not an AI which would reduce
>> the death on road by a factor 100)
>> ___
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Our Silicon Overlord

[Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira]

Well, I don't know what is the likelihood of being hit by drunk drivers
or AI driven cars, but if it were the same I'd prefer to have drunk
drivers. Drunk drivers you can understand: you can improve your chances
by making yourself more visible, do not jump from beyond obstacles, be
more careful when crossing or not crossing before they actually stop. A
failure in an AI car seems much more unpredictable.

Gonçalo

On 07/01/2017 21:24, Xavier Combelle wrote:
> 
>> ...this is a major objective. E.g., we do not want AI driven cars
>> working right most of the time but sometimes killing people because
>> the AI faces situations (such as a local sand storm or a painting on
>> the street with a fake landscape or fake human being) outside its
>> current training and reading. 
> currently I don't like to be killed by a drunk driver, and to my opinion
> it is very more likely to happen than an AI killing me because a mistake
> in programming (I know, it is not the point of view of most of people
> which want a perfect AI with zero dead and not an AI which would reduce
> the death on road by a factor 100)
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> 
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Our Silicon Overlord

[Nick Wedd]

The first time someone's killed by an AI-controlled vehicle, you can be
sure it'll be world news. That's how journalism works.

Nick

On 7 January 2017 at 21:24, Xavier Combelle 
wrote:

>
> > ...this is a major objective. E.g., we do not want AI driven cars
> > working right most of the time but sometimes killing people because
> > the AI faces situations (such as a local sand storm or a painting on
> > the street with a fake landscape or fake human being) outside its
> > current training and reading.
> currently I don't like to be killed by a drunk driver, and to my opinion
> it is very more likely to happen than an AI killing me because a mistake
> in programming (I know, it is not the point of view of most of people
> which want a perfect AI with zero dead and not an AI which would reduce
> the death on road by a factor 100)
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>



-- 
Nick Wedd  mapr...@gmail.com
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Our Silicon Overlord

[David Doshay]

Yes, standards are high for AI systems … but we digress

Cheers,
David G Doshay

ddos...@mac.com





> On 7, Jan 2017, at 1:24 PM, Xavier Combelle  wrote:
> 
> 
>> ...this is a major objective. E.g., we do not want AI driven cars
>> working right most of the time but sometimes killing people because
>> the AI faces situations (such as a local sand storm or a painting on
>> the street with a fake landscape or fake human being) outside its
>> current training and reading. 
> currently I don't like to be killed by a drunk driver, and to my opinion
> it is very more likely to happen than an AI killing me because a mistake
> in programming (I know, it is not the point of view of most of people
> which want a perfect AI with zero dead and not an AI which would reduce
> the death on road by a factor 100)
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Our Silicon Overlord

[Xavier Combelle]

> ...this is a major objective. E.g., we do not want AI driven cars
> working right most of the time but sometimes killing people because
> the AI faces situations (such as a local sand storm or a painting on
> the street with a fake landscape or fake human being) outside its
> current training and reading. 
currently I don't like to be killed by a drunk driver, and to my opinion
it is very more likely to happen than an AI killing me because a mistake
in programming (I know, it is not the point of view of most of people
which want a perfect AI with zero dead and not an AI which would reduce
the death on road by a factor 100)
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

[Computer-go] January KGS bot tournament

[Nick Wedd]

The January KGS bot tournament will be on Sunday, January 15th, starting at
08:00 UTC and end by 15:00 UTC.  It will use 19x19 boards, with time limits
of 29 minutes each plus very fast Canadian overtime, and komi of 7½.  It
will be a Swiss tournament.  See *http://www.gokgs.com/tournInfo.jsp?id=1095
*

Please register by emailing me at mapr...@gmail.com, with the words "KGS
Tournament Registration" in the email title.
In view of the low numbers of entrants to these events in the last half of
2016, I have reduced their frequency to six a year. The schedule for 2017
is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/future.html

Nick
-- 
Nick Wedd  mapr...@gmail.com
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Our Silicon Overlord

[Robert Jasiek]

On 07.01.2017 16:33, Jim O'Flaherty wrote:

I hope you get access to AlphaGo ASAP.


More realistically, I (we) would need to translate the maths into 
algorithmic strategy then executed by a program module representing the 
human opponent. Such is necessary because no human can remember 
everything to create a legal superko sequence of over 13,500,000 moves 
or have the mere stamina to perform it. (Already just counting to 1 
million is said to take 3 weeks without sleep...)


Anyway,...

> exploring AI weaknesses

...this is a major objective. E.g., we do not want AI driven cars 
working right most of the time but sometimes killing people because the 
AI faces situations (such as a local sand storm or a painting on the 
street with a fake landscape or fake human being) outside its current 
training and reading.


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Our Silicon Overlord

[Jim O'Flaherty]

I love your dedication to the principles of logic. I'm looking forward to
hearing and seeing how your explorations in this area pan out. They will be
valuable to everyone interested in exploring AI weaknesses. I hope you get
access to AlphaGo ASAP.

On Jan 6, 2017 11:28 PM, "Robert Jasiek"  wrote:

> On 06.01.2017 23:37, Jim O'Flaherty wrote:
>
>> into a position with superko [...] how do you even get AlphaGo into a the
>> arcane
>> state in the first place,
>>
>
> I can't in practice.
>
> I have not provided a way to beat AlphaGo from the game start at the empty
> board.
>
> All I have shown is that there are positions beyond AlphaGo's capabilities
> to refute your claim that AlphaGo would handle all positions well.
>
> Hui and Lee constructed positions with such aspects: Hui with long-term
> aji, Lee with complex reduction aji. Some versions of AlphaGo mishandled
> the situations locally or locally + globally.
>
> The professional players will be
>> open to all sorts of creative ideas on how to find weaknesses with
>> AlphaGo.
>>
>
> Or the amateur players or theoreticians.
>
> Perhaps you can persuade one of the 9p-s to explore your idea
>> of pushing the AlphaGo AI in this direction.
>>
>
> Rather I'd need playing time against AlphaGo.
>
> IOW, we are now well outside of provable spaces
>>
>
> For certain given positions, proofs of difficulty exist. Since Go is a
> complete-information game, there can never be a proof that AlphaGo could
> never do it. There can only ever be proofs of difficulty.
>
> mathematical proof around a full game
>>
>
> From the empty board? Of course not (today).
>
> We cannot formally prove much simpler models,
>>
>
> Formal proofs for certain types of positions (such as with round_up(n/2)
> n-tuple kos) exist.
>
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go