4 ms·
More like 1/1000x, there are a bunch of rubik’s cube solvers on github. Dexterity to manipulate a Rubik’s cube is really incredible, especially though the enti
by paulsutter 7y ago
More like 1/1000x, there are a bunch of rubik’s cube solvers on github.
Dexterity to manipulate a Rubik’s cube is really incredible, especially though the entire sequence of solving it. It’s a very well-chosen dexterity challenge.
This whole criticism is bizarre
- thaumasiotes 7y agoThe claim "I solved a Rubik's cube using a computer" is totally uninteresting. The claim "I solved a Rubik's cube using a neural network" is different, and much more interesting than the first claim.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- solveit 7y agoIt really isn't. It's quite obviously possible and not worth the effort if you happen to know anything about Rubik's cubes and neural networks. In fact, I would be much more interested in "I solved a Rubik's cube using a computer" because you can then talk about the mathematics of a Rubik's cube (presumably the algorithm used is a human-comprehensible one), while for "I solved a Rubik's cube using a neural network" the only sensible question is "and how badly did you have to overfit to do that?"
- thaumasiotes 7y agoYou can assume the "computer" solution is overfitted, too. There's no reason to, because general methods are well-known, but it's even easier to just hardcode a cube and the list of moves that solves it than it is to implement one of those general methods. Why assume that "I solved a Rubik's cube using a neural network" guarantees that I cheated?