And yet computers continue to perform tasks that were talked about for years as something uniquely human / intelligence driven. This is a nice philosophical debate, but in practice I think it falls flat.
I dont see any single case of that. Rather in every case the goal posts were moved.
Can a computer play chess? No.
They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one.
That was never the challenge. The challenge was having them play chess; ie., no tricks, no shortcuts. Really evaluate the present board state, and actually choose a move.
And likewise everything else. A rock beats a child at finding the path to the bottom of a hill.
A rock "outperforms" the child. The challenge was never, literally, getting to the bottom of the hill: that's dumb. The challenge was matching the child's ability to do that anywhere via exploration, curiosity, planning, coordination, and everything else.
If you reduce intelligence to merely completing a highly specific task then there is always a shortcut, which uses no intelligence, to solving that task. The ability to build tools which use these shortcuts was never in doubt: we have done that for millenia.
> They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one.
> That was never the challenge. The challenge was having them play chess; ie., no tricks, no shortcuts. Really evaluate the present board state, and actually choose a move.
Uh-huh. And how exactly do you play chess? Do you not, perhaps, think about future states resultant from your next move?
Also, Alpha Zero, with its ability to do a tree search entirely removed, achieves an ELO score of greater than 3,000 in chess, which isn't even the intended design of the algorithm.
A rock will frequently fail to get the to bottom of a hill due to local minimums vs. global minimums. A child will too sometimes.
> Can a computer play chess? No.
> They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one.
This is a perfect example of moving the goal posts. The objective was never to simulate a human playing chess.
mjburgess|4 years ago
Can a computer play chess? No.
They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one.
That was never the challenge. The challenge was having them play chess; ie., no tricks, no shortcuts. Really evaluate the present board state, and actually choose a move.
And likewise everything else. A rock beats a child at finding the path to the bottom of a hill.
A rock "outperforms" the child. The challenge was never, literally, getting to the bottom of the hill: that's dumb. The challenge was matching the child's ability to do that anywhere via exploration, curiosity, planning, coordination, and everything else.
If you reduce intelligence to merely completing a highly specific task then there is always a shortcut, which uses no intelligence, to solving that task. The ability to build tools which use these shortcuts was never in doubt: we have done that for millenia.
klmadfejno|4 years ago
> That was never the challenge. The challenge was having them play chess; ie., no tricks, no shortcuts. Really evaluate the present board state, and actually choose a move.
Uh-huh. And how exactly do you play chess? Do you not, perhaps, think about future states resultant from your next move?
Also, Alpha Zero, with its ability to do a tree search entirely removed, achieves an ELO score of greater than 3,000 in chess, which isn't even the intended design of the algorithm.
A rock will frequently fail to get the to bottom of a hill due to local minimums vs. global minimums. A child will too sometimes.
Falling3|4 years ago
This is a perfect example of moving the goal posts. The objective was never to simulate a human playing chess.