I think you're right that the human multi-tasks, but I think you're not really right on where the multi-tasking really takes place. Usually thinking about tactics, strategy, and searching through the tree are discrete steps.
The place the parallelism really takes place is when searching for what grandmasters call candidate moves. Much like you can look at a scene and immediately recognize what objects are, a grandmaster can look at a chess board and quickly see which moves are the important ones.
Oh, I see why people are confused with what I wrote. I meant, the rules for filling in the database were programmed in advance, the guidelines. The AI can't change its program.
Maybe you won't be satisfied until an actual humanoid robot is moving pieces by itself, having bought the chess set from a local shop.
Mate, if you're going to say it can teach itself, then it better be able to actually teach itself. I have no objection to this chess program as a clear demonstration of weak AI.
Chess was AI until the computers started doing it well, then it became "not AI". So AI is defined as whatever humans do better than computers at the current time, a list which is getting smaller and smaller. I guess someday there will be nothing left.
This is the kind of argument you see from people who think a chatterbox thinks. There's been a clear understanding of the difference between "hard AI" and "weak AI" for decades. Chess playing computers are clearly weak AI. This isn't an insult, it's the way these things are categorized.
Sigh. The reason that humans experts are no longer competitive is because human experts prune where Deep Ply fears to trust static analysis. Pitted against a relentless algorithm which resists intuitive pruning, grand-master human pruning leaks a full pawn or two per game.
lol yes, but that's why we consider computers stupid, even though they can still win at chess through brute force. The fact remains that the vast majority of chess moves in a given position are bad, and the computer program that learns to prune them first will have a huge advantage.
Go ahead, give it the scrabble manual. See what it does. Give it a reading teacher, it won't matter. It is incapable of doing more than playing chess. That's what it was programmed to do.
Is it likely that a player like Bobby Fischer dedicated so much of his memory to the pursuit that he was forced to sacrifice processing power elsewhere?
I don't think so. I've looked, but never found evidence that a human brain can "fill up." I estimated once that playing chess at a top level is similar in mental dedication to learning a second language very well (based on summing the total knowledge base required to play chess at a top level. I spent a lot of time finding grandmaster explanations of how they think).
Since around 1980 the amount of knowledge has increased, since the grandmaster opening book grows deeper and deeper.
Excellent post.
Thankyou, good sir. I hope you have an excellent day.
The theory of Evolution does not cover bio-genesis (the first living thing). Partially by definition.
This is one of the big hang-ups for religious people........I've found if I explain natural selection to people, they readily accept it, as long as I clarify that "I'm not here trying to prove God doesn't exist, I'm only trying to show you something cool."
It will lose to those computers. It only plays at around the level of GnuChess, so don't be impressed. To be honest, I'm not even sure why this is a story.
His method of dealing with the move horizon is cool, but I'm sure someone has thought of it before (since I have, and if I thought of it, someone else surely has).
The question is how. It isn't brute force, though they do delve into plies as desired.
As you mention, grandmasters know when it is appropriate to search through the move-tree, when to look deeply into a position. They prune the search tree very hard.......so the question is, how can we get computers to know which branches are ok to prune, and which aren't? Computers still aren't very good at that.
Incidentally, it amazes me how often Tal would say, "and in this position, I decided to calculate every variation all the way to mate." There are not many people who can keep the moves that clear in their head (and sometimes, the calculation was too deep, and he just guessed).
For comparison, GnuChess also plays at an International Master level. The article says this chess engine is much slower than GnuChess.
Humans are able to play chess at a high level because they are able to brutally prune the decision tree.....a grandmaster can quickly eliminate most moves as useless (although he/she will probably think of it in reverse terms: saying he/she quickly identified the important moves in the position). A computer that could combine that kind of pruning with the massive searching power would be ridiculously powerful. Better than our current computers by an order of magnitude.
The real danger here is that manufacturers can use this as an excuse to avoid liability.......they can say, "It's not our fault the car got hacked and rammed into the building, we followed industry standards!"
We don't want them to "follow industry standards," we want them to write secure software.
Intel should get their own game in gear before telling other people what to do. It takes special effort to create a system that's exploitable on both Mac and Windows, but Intel has done it.
OK, since you are not feeling very creative today, I'll give some ideas to start you off. Think of Kickstarter.....pre-funding features works. Think of Wikipedia. Think of Firefox.....which brings in enough money to fund itself and pay salaries, but doesn't make anyone rich.
Realize that the software most people use from day to day is already free, or has a free replacement. And frankly, the users would have been better off if we'd used an open, interchangeable document format, instead of trying to chase the crappy Microsoft Word format.
Slashdot Mirror
Absent minded professor.
Once I ended up with soy sauce on my pancakes instead of syrup.
Yes.
Why are you so certain that a neural network matches a human brain?
I think you're right that the human multi-tasks, but I think you're not really right on where the multi-tasking really takes place. Usually thinking about tactics, strategy, and searching through the tree are discrete steps.
The place the parallelism really takes place is when searching for what grandmasters call candidate moves. Much like you can look at a scene and immediately recognize what objects are, a grandmaster can look at a chess board and quickly see which moves are the important ones.
Oh, I see why people are confused with what I wrote. I meant, the rules for filling in the database were programmed in advance, the guidelines. The AI can't change its program.
Talking about the phrase "Teach itself" is a mere semantic dispute. I would rather discuss what the AI actually does.
Very well said. I will think more deeply about that in my future conversations.
Maybe you won't be satisfied until an actual humanoid robot is moving pieces by itself, having bought the chess set from a local shop.
Mate, if you're going to say it can teach itself, then it better be able to actually teach itself. I have no objection to this chess program as a clear demonstration of weak AI.
Chess was AI until the computers started doing it well, then it became "not AI". So AI is defined as whatever humans do better than computers at the current time, a list which is getting smaller and smaller. I guess someday there will be nothing left.
This is the kind of argument you see from people who think a chatterbox thinks. There's been a clear understanding of the difference between "hard AI" and "weak AI" for decades. Chess playing computers are clearly weak AI. This isn't an insult, it's the way these things are categorized.
Sigh. The reason that humans experts are no longer competitive is because human experts prune where Deep Ply fears to trust static analysis. Pitted against a relentless algorithm which resists intuitive pruning, grand-master human pruning leaks a full pawn or two per game.
lol yes, but that's why we consider computers stupid, even though they can still win at chess through brute force. The fact remains that the vast majority of chess moves in a given position are bad, and the computer program that learns to prune them first will have a huge advantage.
Go ahead, give it the scrabble manual. See what it does. Give it a reading teacher, it won't matter. It is incapable of doing more than playing chess. That's what it was programmed to do.
What's the difference?
The rules were programmed in advance.
For example, you couldn't put it in front of scrabble and expect it to do something reasonable.
But now we have some jurisdictions (EU I think is one) mandating cellular connections in new cars so they can support "emergency features"
Wow, that's a horrible idea. First thing I'm going to do is disable that shit.
It didn't teach itself to play, it searched through the move-tree to fill in a database.
Is it likely that a player like Bobby Fischer dedicated so much of his memory to the pursuit that he was forced to sacrifice processing power elsewhere?
I don't think so. I've looked, but never found evidence that a human brain can "fill up." I estimated once that playing chess at a top level is similar in mental dedication to learning a second language very well (based on summing the total knowledge base required to play chess at a top level. I spent a lot of time finding grandmaster explanations of how they think).
Since around 1980 the amount of knowledge has increased, since the grandmaster opening book grows deeper and deeper.
Excellent post.
Thankyou, good sir. I hope you have an excellent day.
The theory of Evolution does not cover bio-genesis (the first living thing). Partially by definition.
This is one of the big hang-ups for religious people........I've found if I explain natural selection to people, they readily accept it, as long as I clarify that "I'm not here trying to prove God doesn't exist, I'm only trying to show you something cool."
It will lose to those computers. It only plays at around the level of GnuChess, so don't be impressed. To be honest, I'm not even sure why this is a story.
His method of dealing with the move horizon is cool, but I'm sure someone has thought of it before (since I have, and if I thought of it, someone else surely has).
The question is how. It isn't brute force, though they do delve into plies as desired.
As you mention, grandmasters know when it is appropriate to search through the move-tree, when to look deeply into a position. They prune the search tree very hard.......so the question is, how can we get computers to know which branches are ok to prune, and which aren't? Computers still aren't very good at that.
Incidentally, it amazes me how often Tal would say, "and in this position, I decided to calculate every variation all the way to mate." There are not many people who can keep the moves that clear in their head (and sometimes, the calculation was too deep, and he just guessed).
For comparison, GnuChess also plays at an International Master level. The article says this chess engine is much slower than GnuChess.
Humans are able to play chess at a high level because they are able to brutally prune the decision tree.....a grandmaster can quickly eliminate most moves as useless (although he/she will probably think of it in reverse terms: saying he/she quickly identified the important moves in the position). A computer that could combine that kind of pruning with the massive searching power would be ridiculously powerful. Better than our current computers by an order of magnitude.
The real danger here is that manufacturers can use this as an excuse to avoid liability.......they can say, "It's not our fault the car got hacked and rammed into the building, we followed industry standards!"
We don't want them to "follow industry standards," we want them to write secure software.
Intel should get their own game in gear before telling other people what to do. It takes special effort to create a system that's exploitable on both Mac and Windows, but Intel has done it.
and I don't see any empirical evidence that it would.
Come on man, it's been shown to work in plenty of projects. If it works in some, why don't you think it would work in others?
OK, since you are not feeling very creative today, I'll give some ideas to start you off. Think of Kickstarter.....pre-funding features works. Think of Wikipedia. Think of Firefox.....which brings in enough money to fund itself and pay salaries, but doesn't make anyone rich.
Realize that the software most people use from day to day is already free, or has a free replacement. And frankly, the users would have been better off if we'd used an open, interchangeable document format, instead of trying to chase the crappy Microsoft Word format.
I would say, "I have to run myself," but I'm pretty sure if I did that, it would by default turn me into a blathering moron.
A correct answer is "teach the general public to recognize competence," but of course that's a problem by itself.
Go Linux! Bow down to RMS's feet!
Unless you're a BSD fan, then you want to tar and feather him, and burn Linus in effigy.
What's wrong with them? Genuine question. I can imagine the quality is lower because they are more local, but besides that?