I'm not sure your question makes sense. The zero-foreknowledge, 100% self-play thing happens in the context of simulated chess games, which translate fairly wel

I'm not sure your question makes sense. The zero-foreknowledge, 100% self-play thing happens in the context of simulated chess games, which translate fairly well into the real world since there isn't much additional interference with external factors. You don't even have to read your opponent's face to win. If you want to extrapolate from there to the case of "how to slow climate change while considering politics" then you would have to simulate the whole game of "playing dressed ape at planetary scale" too. > It would seem to me that intelligence at the highest levels isn’t constrained by foreknowledge, it’s constrained by the consequences of past decisions made during the (inevitably ongoing) interactive learning phase. This on the other hand does not seem like a particularly big obstacle. AIs can learn from automated systems such as chatbots, alexa-style gadgets, by observing human interactions, omitting half of the conversation and trying to reconstruct it, etc. Humans are constrained by a limited lifetime and not being able to parallelize their experience, AIs could gobble up billions of hours of human-human, human-AI interaction and AI-AI interaction data and generate more when needed.