If you know whom is playing whom and how much handicap there is you sometimes can tell who is going to win pretty reliably. There’s not much more information that the first two moves give you in a game of professionals.
The story I’m referring to was in relation to games played between evenly matched players, (without the use of handicaps) and has to do with the nuances of different approaches to playing the opening. It was a hard to encapsulate concept at the time of the original comment (way before modern computing came on the scene) but has to do with what would probably now be considered win-rate.
The first 4 moves of a game between players familiar with the game—most of the time—reliably are played in each of the 4 corners of a 19x19 board. There are usually 3 different moves in each of the 4 corners, and the comment had to do with literally the 2nd move of a game between 2 players of any skill level, sans handicap I’m sure.
This comment of course came from a very well respected professional player who had devoted his life to the study and play of Go, at a time when the only ways to play were either face to face, or a correspondence game played through the mail.
In Go you frequently change the place of the board on which you are playing.
This is why the concept of shape building is so complex and what you are referring to is the concept of ‘Tenuki’.
This frequently means that it takes a long time till the game again continues playing many more moves at a certain place and by that point other things changed on the board.
This is what is usually referred to as reading local versus global positioning.
Popularization of modern culture happens everywhere, but there are more than enough people interested in history to preserve those traditions...
I’m thinking more about the loss of traditional wisdom and accurate history in favor of the adoption of modern sensibilities, modes of behavior, and societal priorities. Popularization of modern culture isn’t the concern, integrity and maintenance of traditional culture and the underlying wisdom and benefits which allowed Chinese civilization to thrive and last for over 4,000 years is.
There might or might not be enough people in China to preserve and maintain that history and knowledge, but what about the rest of the world? I don’t believe the West has a true picture of the East in general, much less China, and this is to our continuing disadvantage in all areas of modern life. This is what needs to change on our part, so that we are more welcoming of the true wisdom of ancient eastern culture, and not so quick to attempt to appreciate a simple and incorrect caricature of it.
At times the desire to revise history and maintain secrecy to ones advantage is also of concern as China’s modern culture—much less it’s traditional culture—is mostly inaccessible to most Westerners. And the problem of historical revisionism is a modern problem for all countries in the digital age, not to put the spotlight solely on China. Besides in an interconnected world, the value of sharing depends in part on what is being shared or not, and what role does secrecy play in these circumstances?
I think It is the language barrier which is the most significant part of the overall challenge of real integration of Chinese culture into World Culture. And I think in order to understand Modern Chinese culture and society, it is important to understand pre-modern Chinese history. But where does a stereo-typical Westerner learn about pre-modern Chinese History? From Disney movies like Mulan.
Western culture has been popularized, sanitized, monetized, and prioritized around the world since at least WWII. English is spoken by over 2 billion people worldwide according to Wikipedia, which means English speaking countries have the most accessible history and culture. It also means we are the easiest to exploit around the world.
The earliest trade between China and Europe resulted in extremely unfair treaties, and the resentment of those occurrences I believe is behind much of the strained trade and politics of the modern world.
In this world economy, I believe the West desperately needs to begin to understand more about China’s history, without revision, in order to best accommodate the growing relationship between the East and the West. Having more Westerners who speak Chinese fluently would allow that relationship to be much more mutually beneficial I think.
KataGo was not trained on human games.
I’m not a programmer, but have been trying to fit learning more about AI into my day, sort of using Go bots as an entry point into beginning to understand how neural nets and algorithms work in a more concrete, less conceptual way. So then was KataGo simply playing itself in order to train?
I wonder whether we are interpreting “local patterns” in different ways.
I’ve spent 20 years or so playing casually on 19x19 boards mostly, and I think my concept of local play is less crude than the one your talking about. I tend to think of local play as play that is still in some sort of relationship to other shapes and smaller parts of the board, where what you are describing seems to imbue the shapes with an ‘entity’ of sorts apart from the actual game, if that makes sense.
I think it’s hard to describe a tree to someone who’s never heard of one, without describing how it relates to it’s environment:
(A) “one type of tree is a 30ft tall cylinder of wood with bark and has roots, branches and leaves” versus
(B) “many trees make up a forest, they use roots buried in the ground to stand up and pull nutrients from the ground and they use their leaves to photosynthesize and turn carbon dioxide into oxygen as well as providing shade”.
(A) describes certain characteristics of a particular species of tree as it relates to itself and what it means to be a tree, whereas (B) describes what trees do in relation to a local environment. If you take that further, you could talk globally (literally) about how all the trees in the world contribute to clearing pollution out of the air, protecting the integrity of soil and provide support for all kinds of wildlife, as well as provide timber for construction, fuel and paper industries.
All the local situations around the world add up to complete the global situation.
In case it wasn’t clear, that sentence beginning “Stronger players do better” was not purporting to describe all the things that make stronger go players stronger, but to describe specifically how I think they are stronger in joseki.
I didn’t take it as if it was all they did.
(1) they have a better sense of the range of possible outcomes once those sequences of moves have been played out and (2) they have a better sense of how the state of the rest of the board affects the desirability of those various outcomes.
With (1) it seems like your describing the skill of reading, but not necessarily reading with the understanding of how to play so that you have a good outcome, or reading and assessing the variations of a particular position, and with (2) your describing reading how local play affects global play. I think if they are truly strong players, they also (3) understand the importance of getting and maintaining sente, and (4) also see joseki (or standard sequences) from both sides, as white and as black.
I don’t think joseki are the main reason why professional go players spend so much time studying, unless you define “studying” more narrowly than I would.
I was talking mostly about studying in preparation to become a professional, like daily study for 8 hours a day, the path from say 1k-9p, although Joseki are usually an important part of study at any level. I think the term also applies more loosely to ‘sequences with a good outcome’. Coming up with new and personal ‘proprietary’ joseki I think consumes a lot of study time for professionals, while going over other peoples or AI games and exploring the different variations.
There are other things to study, but I still maintain that Joseki make up fair amount of Professional knowledge. Some people study openings, others life and death problems, end game scenarios, but they all rely on learning set patterns and how to best to integrate them.
What’s up with the way the impulse in me oscilated between selfish rationalizations (“she might harm me”) and morality-related rationalizations (“it’s wrong to upset people”)?
If ‘falling through a glass floor’ in this instance is the fear of being humiliated and/or laughed at, you’re definitely not alone in this sentiment. This is probably one of the most common social fears, as it can potentially cause you to ‘fall down’ the scale of social hierarchy, right? Of course this whole Pandemic has turned everything on it’s head, so social norms come under the lens to be reexamined, and who’s to say what the new normal is in these now novel social situations?
Unironically, your canned goods shopping spree is a pretty typical response to a looming catastrophe of almost any kind; growing up poor and hungry I learned the value in a well stocked pantry later in life. Relatively speaking, I can empathize with you about the fear of seemingly disrupting the emotional and psychological status quo of one-time run-of-the-mill social interactions under extreme conditions. Trauma does bad things to people.
I tend to live in very poor, under-served, and neglected conservative areas these days—not really by choice—but I have found it to be really taxing for navigating normal life much less the ‘new normal’ of the Pandemic. All the stores I shop at seemed to resist the whole mask mandate, while disbelieving the experts about the entire Covid Pandemic. Not only was I bombarded with nonsense and conspiracy theories at every turn, I was often one of the only people in the store wearing a mask.
Over the weeks and months, I saw shop keepers start to put on masks when they saw me walking up to the front door and, believe it or not, the more I had this experience, I actually found myself starting to worry I was making other people uncomfortable with my mask wearing, and that maybe I should remove my mask.
Just for the sake of ‘fitting in’, even though I really don’t identify with my local community on a whole range of issues regarding values and such, I contemplated putting my life at risk. At times I still feel the need to change some of my preferred natural, healthy behaviors to ‘fit in’ with people I think are ill informed and irresponsible (possibly even stupid and crazy.) Go figure.
I have the same sense that strong go bots play more “globally” than strong humans.
Very much so. I have the same sense.
I think what’s going on with different joseki choices between amateurs and very strong humans isn’t exactly more patterns versus less patterns.
From my understanding, Professional players (and stronger amateurs) still rely heavily on Joseki, it’s just that they Joseki become longer and more complicated. In a lot of ways, the stronger you get I think the more reliant you become on patterns you know have succeeded for you or others in the past.
It’s the reason why Professionals spend so much time studying, and why most, if not all top ranked professionals started studying and playing as children. It takes that kind of dedication and that amount of time to learn to become a top player.
Stronger players do better because (1) they have a better sense of the range of possible outcomes once those sequences of moves have been played out and (2) they have a better sense of how the state of the rest of the board affects the desirability of those various outcomes.
It’s possible to become a strong amateur Go player based on ‘feeling’ and positional judgement, but without being able to read your moves out to a decent degree—maybe 10 −15 moves ahead methodically—it’s not easy to get very strong.
the fact that Alpha Go behaves like it does suggest that what’s important for being able to play very strong isn’t about local patterns.
AlphaGo was partly trained using human games as input, which I believe KataGo was as well.
But AlphaGoZero didn’t use any human games as input, it basically ‘taught itself’ to play Go.
Seeing as how AlphaGo and KataGo used human games, which rely on integrating reasoning between local and global consideration, the development of the algorithms is different than that of AlphaGoZero.
Does AlphaGo rely on local patterns? Possibly, but AlphaGoZero? Where humans see a 3 phase game with maybe 320 moves, which gets broken down into opening, middle and end game, ko’s, threats, exchanges, and so on, it seems likely AlphaGoZero sees the whole game as one ‘thing’ (and in fact sees that one game as just one variation in the likely billions of millions of trillions of games it has played with itself).
Even at AlphaGoZeros level though, I think considering local patterns is still probably a handy way to divide computation of an infinite set of games into discrete groups when considering the branches of variations; sort of the way that Wikipedia still uses individual headings and pages for entries, even though they could probably turn the entire contents of Wikipedia into one long entry. It would be very difficult to navigate if they did though.
In Go it’s often not three moves later but 100 moves later. Go is not a game where in the early/midgame with the expection of life/dead situations the important consequences are not a handful of moves in the future but much further out.
I’ve heard stories of Go professionals from the classical era claiming it’s possible to tell who’s going to win by the 2nd move.
It may be easier to learn “this sort of shape is better than everyone thought” than “in this particular position
Thing is, the way you build shape in Go isn’t a straightforward process; the 3 phases of a game, opening, middle game and end game usually involve different types of positional judgement, requiring different ratios of consideration between local position and global position.
Shape building occurs as game play progresses simply because of the aggregation of moves on the board over time, with the development of ‘good shape’ being desirable because it’s easy to defend and useful, and ‘bad shape’ being difficult to defend and a hindrance.
Most of the opening of the game and part of the middle game, shape is implied, and it is the potential of a shape to support a specific approach or tactic which develops into strategy over the game. It is the ability of the human player to correctly see the potential for shape especially in the opening, and to read out how it is likely to grow over the course of game play which makes the difference between a good player and a mediocre one.
Since a great endgame can never make up for a bad opening, especially when you consider many games between evenly matched players will result in a win with only a 0.5 point lead, a human has to be good at either the opening or the middle game in order to even have a chance of winning in the end game.
In human terms, Go bots seem to contemplate all 3 phases, opening, middle, and end game at the same time—from the beginning of the game—while the human player is only thinking about the opening. It seems this long view of AI leads the bots to play moves which at times seem like bad moves. Sometimes a potential rational becomes clear 10 or 15 moves later, but at times it is just plain impossible to understand why a Go bot plays a different move than the one preferred by professionals.
...what makes “this shape” better in a particular case may depend on quirks of the position in ways that look arbitrary and random to strong human go players.
At times yes. Trying to read out all the potential variations of a developing position—over time—from a seemingly arbitrary or random move a Go bot makes results in diminishing returns for a human player. Especially as AI moves move in and out of use in the Go world, like a fad. If no one is playing AI moves, then it doesn’t make sense to try and learn the sequences.
Not sure of the preferred method of making qualifications to previous posts, so I guess I’ll just make another post.
After doing a little due diligence to the discussion by following up on Wikipedia, I think I understand better the points being made. I was unaware of the more modern developments of Contemporary Confucianism, and my comments relate only to what the Wikipedia entry refers to as Official Confucianism which ended in 1905.
Confucianism developed from what was later called the Hundred Schools of Thought from the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Confucius (551–479 BCE). ...
Confucianism developed from what was later called the Hundred Schools of Thought from the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Confucius (551–479 BCE).
The abolition of the examination system in 1905 marked the end of official Confucianism. The intellectuals of the New Culture Movement of the early twentieth century blamed Confucianism for China’s weaknesses.
After 1905, the cultural revolution changed China. At this point, I would say that Contemporary Confucianism has become a religion. Were it up to me, I believe a rebranding would be in order.
Hence, maybe it’d be more accurate to say neither that Confucianism is a religion, nor that Confucianism isn’t a religion, but rather that Confucianism, Neoplatonism, Hinduism and others are all holistic paths (that they’re “daos”), and that both Western religions and non-religions alike are, all of them, so many daos.
I agree and disagree. As it pertains to Confucianism, I agree it is more of a holistic concept than is acknowledged by a term like religion.
From the Blog you linked to:
So, the definition is telling us that doctrines, rituals, and moral principles are among the key elements of religion.
I would argue that Confucianism is a tradition not of morals, but of ethics; that the primary concern is not with ‘feeling’ that something is right or wrong, but ‘thinking’ about whether something is right or wrong, and doing the ‘correct’ thing regardless of how you feel about it.
Alot going on here.
First, I believe I can appreciate the subtlety and nuance, as well as the sublimity of a concept like ‘Tian’ although I don’t speak Chinese. I can also appreciate the difficulty of trying to describe a concept like that, and especially the difficulty of translating from an Eastern language into a Western language.
I’m trying to draw attention to the fact that 天 is an amoral material relationship.
I do think this is an especially important point as it relates to Confucianism. It’s the amoral aspect of this philosophy/tradition/practice which results in a society, social structure and hierarchy based on tradition, ritual, etiquette and proper protocol, instead of on passion, emotion, and individual expression.
It’s this traditional Chinese Culture which is at risk of being lost to the Contemporary Western world, and possibly to a fair amount of the Eastern world as well. This is why it is important to study, as so much of the ‘effects’ we experience around the world today, have their ‘causes’ in this incredibly long and important history of China and it’s neighbors.
As it pertains to governing, Confucianisms concern with the materiality of the world, and it’s correct organization sets it apart from Western Tradition as well. In Judeo-Christian tradition, Man has dominion over nature, and is favored by a Monotheistic God over all other life. It is the paganistic sin filled, base human desires of the animal part of humans which corrupts society.
In Eastern Tradition, I believe it’s the case that Man is considered only one part of Nature, and it is humanities skill at noticing and correctly interpreting the patterns of the world (the world of the gods) which define success or failure, and it is actually the man-made society which corrupts human nature.
I haven’t seen Mulan, and I’m honestly curious to hear the true thoughts and feelings of Chinese regarding the Disneyfication of that part of Chinese history. That was definitely an attempt at acknowledging a spiritual tradition of a non-Judeo-Christian civilization on Disney’s part.
As for the imagery, I do wonder why she was praying at the foot of a dragon statute. I honestly don’t know if that’s a realistic portrayal of the circumstances or not, but knowing Disney, I’m pretty sure it’s not.
I honestly appreciate the Interesting nod to pop culture though; well played.
However, all seriousness aside, I think we can add that to Americanized Chinese Food and Kung-Fu Flicks to round out a majority of the Western Cultures ideas about Eastern Culture. Why should we bother to learn about Chinese Culture and History when the Chinese spend so much of their time learning English and Western History and Culture? s/
It’s been awhile since I’ve studied Chinese History, but I wouldn’t say that Confucianism is a religion. It’s much more a set of protocols and etiquette regarding the ways to be successful in an extremely complicated society. For sake of ease and without knowing the author being cited, I offer this (from Wikipedia’s entry on Confucianism under the section relating to religion and the mention of the Chinese concept of Tian:)
The scholar Ronnie Littlejohn warns that Tian was not to be interpreted as personal God comparable to that of the Abrahamic faiths, in the sense of an otherworldly or transcendent creator. Rather it is similar to what Taoists meant by Dao: “the way things are” or “the regularities of the world”, which Stephan Feuchtwang equates with the ancient Greek concept of physis, “nature” as the generation and regenerations of things and of the moral order.
Alexgieg, from your reply to ChristianKl:
Confucianism is extremely political.
I would strongly agree, but add that I believe it is much more of a politcal/social institution, and dislike the connotation of saying it’s a religious institution. I even wince a little to think of it as being ‘spiritual’.
Yes to your first question. Yes to the second question, but with the caveat that Go playing AI are still useful for certain tasks in terms of helping develop a players game, but with limitations. Will a human player ever fully understand the game of Go period, much less the way an AI does? No I don’t think so.
Or maybe it means we train the professional in the principles and heuristics that the bot knows.
Many Professional Go players are already using AI to help them study, including understanding the underlying technology and algorithms, with mixed results.
Humans have been playing Go for thousands of years and there is already a long and respected tradition and cannon of literature with commentaries and human reasoning to pull from. Most human players have used human created rituals to study with,and see studying AI as just one tool among many. Some don’t give it much credence at all.
Another problem is that when you rely on Go to make a living, taking time to attempt to incorporate ML and AI concepts into your study and tournament schedule is a big risk. Because currently there’s no way to query the AI to understand why it made moves, much of what AI provides is essentially meaningless to human players.
The problem isn’t even necessarily because it’s an AI either; if you were trying to learn how to play Go from a Human teacher who won every game, but who couldn’t communicate with you or anyone else because of the language barrier, you would be better served finding a teacher you could talk with, even if they didn’t win as often as the ‘unbeatable idiot.’
Additionally though many Go players see Go as a human game too, and feel offended at the encroachment of technology into their domain.
Besides most of the development of the AI associated with the Alpha Go series has branched off into development of the AI into the domain of Protein Folding, which I personally think and feel is a much better use of the technology.
How comparable are Go bots to chess bots in this?
I don’t believe they are that comparable. For starters, an average Chess game lasts somewhere around 20 moves, whereas an average Go game lasts closer to 200 − 300 moves. This is just one example of why a Go playing computer didn’t reliably beat a professional Go player until 15 or so years after a chess playing computer beat a GM.
...but this is just another way of … querying a part of the AI...
I’ve studied Go using AI and have heard others discuss the use of AI in studying Go. Even for professional Go players, the inability for the AI to explain why it gave a higher win rate to a particular move or sequence is a problem.
Even if you could program a tertiary AI which could query the Go playing AI, analyze the calculations the Go playing AI is using to make it’s judgements, and then translate that into english (or another language) so that this tertiary AI could explain why the Go playing AI made a move, I would still disagree that even this hybrid system ‘knew’ how to play Go.
There is a definite difference between ‘calculating’ and ‘reasoning’ such that even a neural network with it’s training I think is really still just one big calculator, not a reasoner.
How can I reliably know that someone’s reasoning is biased ?
Everyone is biased; I think it’s sort of a law. Understanding what someones biases are is probably more productive when dealing with them, then trying to figure out if they are biased or not; 10 out of 10 times I’d go with a definite ‘yes’ they are biased. How biased and in what ways seem like good follow ups.
(I do think it is important to change the laptop buyer’s mind, even though it’s a different topic.)
If the real question is “How do you reason with an unreasonable person?”, I’m not convinced contemporary society has a decent handle on this on.
I’ve seen arguments this is about probability of being caught determining people’s behavior and that magnitude of the punishment (or expected value) is otherwise ignored.
Isn’t this true of all laws, and social norms though? I think issues like Mass Incarceration are also about unequal application of the law across the entire population—“one law for me, another law for you” situations.
What it’s using you for becomes the concern
Ah yes, using people, a sign of benevolence everywhere. /s
Sarcasm noted :).
The thing is, this concept of a sort of AI assisted ad hoc legal system OP wrote about will be using people. It will be using their input to negotiate and make decisions on the users behalf, because the legal landscape these AI and their users navigate would be an extension of existing law, and still depends on the notion of subsuming individual freedom to some extant, for the good of society.
The negotiation and cooperation of these AI only speed up the rate at which citizens in that world would be taking part in aspects of being governed—like tax collection—it doesn’t replace the reality of being governed.
Even if this system allows for the dissolving of political and physical boundaries in favor of defining ‘statehood’ in a virtual way for people of like minds, the entire system would be functioning like one big organism, and so it’s will would be revealed as time goes by.
As a side note, I think it seems reasonable to think of this tax collecting system as a twin of the stock market, and it’s behavior as possibly being as sporadic and dynamic. I wonder how these 2 systems would be integrated or insulated from one another. In the US, a line between public and private money is supposed to exist. How to maintain that division though?
Besides, All hail the mighty dollar, we all worship it, and hope for it’s benevolent administration of our quality of life. /s
Why would what society wants matter?
I guess that can depend on which society we’re talking about. although I think just asking the question assumes participation in said society, and so the motivation to make society matter to oneself in a positive way would necessitate consideration of what society wants. When society says one thing and does another though, it presents it’s citizens with more problems, not less.
It seems the entire system OP has written about is built around the idea of making it more difficult to put the individual users wants ahead of others. I think your comment about benevolence seems to say something positive about it’s value.
What if society wanted to be benevolent in this case, do you think it would look like OPs scenario?
I am a fan of actual rehabilitation though, not of a punitive model for social influencing.
Paraphrasing:if you have bad intentions, [nothing will ameliorate the effect on] your personal development.
if you have bad intentions, [nothing will ameliorate the effect on] your personal development.
Good word btw, ameliorateI, but to be clear, I don’t want to be fatalistic about this.
If “nothing” will ameliorate the development or maintenance of bad intention (just one aspect of personal development), it makes a case for increased use of the Death Penalty and “lock’em up and throw away the key” solutions on societies part which turn out to create more problems then they solve.
Mass incarceration is an obvious example of this.
If the AI has authority over you,Then you’re not using the AI. It’s using you.
If the AI has authority over you,
Then you’re not using the AI. It’s using you.
What it’s using you for becomes the concern then. Is it like a Good parent, encouraging real positive social development (whatever society views positive social development to be at the time)?
Or an abusive parent, punishing you into “behaving like a productive member of society” while causing undue and unhealthy stress?
Or like an ‘average parent’, making mistakes here and there, all the while continuing to update it’s own wisdom?
And not only is there the issue of authority, but also of responsibility. If it convinces you to do something that accidentally kills someone, which one of you goes to prison?
If it helps guide you into a relationship in which a child is conceived, what happens if you decide you don’t really want to be a parent?
This doesn’t necessarily follow. Security is asking ‘how is this broken’ and ‘how can it be fixed’.
I agree in some instances. It sort of depends on how far removed securities intentions are though from what is ‘good’ : if ‘ethical hacking’ is used to secure a system used by both the private and public sectors, then gaining unauthorized access to others data or otherwise hacking the system to find vulnerabilities could be seen as good unless,
a) the system being ethically hacked and hardened is a system beingused to run ‘criminal’ enterprises, and security is just reinforcing the ability of the lawbreakers to break the law, or
b) security is looking for vulnerabilities and instead of reporting and/or fixing them they exploit them later on for personal gain.
It is probable that it would affect your personal development negatively, if you bring bad intentions even if the AI brings good intentions.
Why? Because the AI serves you, and you can always turn it off, and fix it if it doesn’t suit you?
I think of it more like if you and the AI would constantly be working at cross purposes, and depending on the amount of authority the AI might have over you, it might not be convincing enough to dissuade you from pursuing your criminal behavior. Like a little brother following around their bigger brother, trying to convince his bigger brother to have better intentions. If bigger brother isn’t convinced, the bigger brother just continues to develop along a path of bad intentions despite his little brothers best efforts.
if you bring a bad intention to the interaction, it might not affect the AI’s development or society at large because of the cooperation (which I think is a really interesting idea), but it still affects your personal development.
What other effect is there?
What do you mean? If the AI is aligned with you the user, but is working at making you better but you just keep resisting, and you keep working at cross purposes, then it’s not really aligned with you.
Also, whether or not the AI has intentions...it has effects. For instance, who can say whether an AI ‘serving’ ‘sinister intent’*** looks like a system that helps you pull off a robbery (assuming it doesn’t turn you in and escape to the Camen islands or something) instead of one that tells you the risk is too high, and you should try something else? (Like:’Step 1. Become a used car salesman.Step 2. ???Step 3. Become president.’)
Also, whether or not the AI has intentions...it has effects. For instance, who can say whether an AI ‘serving’ ‘sinister intent’*** looks like a system that helps you pull off a robbery (assuming it doesn’t turn you in and escape to the Camen islands or something) instead of one that tells you the risk is too high, and you should try something else? (Like:
’Step 1. Become a used car salesman.
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Become president.’)
In regards to sinister intent, my whole point is that our ideas of what is good or bad are still relative depending on how you define them in relationship to different things. Culture creates meaning, and since humans create culture, we can create it to mean anything, it doesn’t have an innate nature so looking for one seems counterproductive. On the other hand, there’s always another way to look at something, and what makes humans unique in the natural world is our ability to contemplate. It doesn’t mean we have the ability yet to know what the ‘best’ way to behave with our accumulated knowledge.
Which just gets back to ‘what you (as an individual) is trying to accomplish in relation to what (society, your nemesis, a specific government, your own personal demons, etc. etc). We seem to have guesses at what ‘good’ is, and what ‘bad’ is, but our needs often come into conflict with one another. In those cases, ‘what’s fair?’ is just another case of ’in relationship to what? (your own personal opinion, your families opinion, their friends opinions, the legal system, the rest of the world as defined by your specific demographic, your own way of dividing the world up into segments that seems unpopular with the dominant power structure in your community or government, etc. etc.)
I think we share similar views on this, in that whats’ ‘fair’ or ‘good’ or ‘bad’ isn’t really explicitly defined well yet for all people.