Charlie wrote: Cheating with AIs must be prevented at all costs and I don't think that bots are any good for analyses. Firstly, they can't explain their reasoning, and, secondly, in kyu or low dan games, there are probably many moves that win the game and AlphaGo inherently doesn't choose the "best" move - it chooses the one with the highest probability of winning. We should not study to emulate that.
If go follows the chess model, there will be more cheating at first when strong go programs become available, but shortly thereafter, those same programs will be used to prevent cheating, which could be done at a rudimentary level simply by comparing the moves of the potential cheater with a computer's moves.
As far as analysis, I think anyone who truly wants to improve would be a fool to not use a computer, once the strong programs become available easily. A computer can give a list of moves with win percentage, including the list of possible follow-up moves. It should become standard pretty soon for someone like me to just run a quick program to analyze a go game I just played, and see instantly where my big mistakes were.
I am more worried about the global economic impact, as well as lack of a conscientious human touch, that the possibility of general purpose neural net robots will have on the world.
