To address this, has anyone considered pitting AlphaGo against a team of 9p players consulting with each other, and perhaps taking charge of different conflicts on the board?
There's just no useful way to "pool" human thinking power and redistribute it to where it's needed the most – all the players will simultaneously consider the same branches. At best you reduce the risk of making a silly mistake, but sitting pros are already pretty good at that.
A computer-assisted pool of humans might work. Feed each human a board state advanced by 1/2/3/N moves down the decision tree in some direction, and have them evaluate that particular sub-tree. It's a map-reduce problem!
Are Bridgewater Capital's employees Ray Dalio's focused?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine_%28Greg_Egan_novel%...
Is there a meaningful response that each one could give that would be optimal? I figure this would only stand a chance of working if the pool of humans were cloned from a 9 dan :-)
Of course, Go has way too many eligible possible moves for random people to vote on, but a large enough group of top pros might be able to do well just by voting.
Four to five expert chess players suggested moves for the world team. I feel that for any reasonable non-expert it comes down to "choose between these suggested moves" rather than "pick a move". It's also not really random human beings, since the selection of participants is self-selected and therefore much more likely to contain very good chess players.
This is mostly semantics, but anyone who doesn't read your link might get the wrong idea, so I felt like clarifying it a bit.