3 ms·

The OP posted a chess like variant, so I used that as my baseline. Sure mental energy is wasted playing games, but a lot of modern mathematics has arisen from t

by fny 6y ago

The OP posted a chess like variant, so I used that as my baseline. Sure mental energy is wasted playing games, but a lot of modern mathematics has arisen from the study of games... Consider: - Game Theory - Was the "Seven Bridges of Königsberg" not a fun puzzle of sorts? - Was probability and statistics not founded on trying to hack gambling? - Did knot theory start out with advanced applications in mind or people deep dive into making knots for religious reasons? - How are Fermat's last theorem, the Collatz Conjecture, Goldbachs conjecture, or the twin primes conjecture not unnatural, constrained environments? I'd argue DeepBlue and AlphaGo and Watson /are/ playing the game, just in a far more sophisticated manner, and our collective learnings as humans provide the foundation for academic endeavors. If you remember, the first variant of AlphaGo studied games played by expert humans. Also, playing, understanding, and thinking about these games has been a boon to the AI community for decades. McCarthy has an article on the subject called "Chess as the Drosophila of AI". My point is that these things start off as games and puzzle divorced from a problem, as a pure pursuit of leisure or curiosity, and over time, perhaps millennia, these mental explorations bear fruit in the most surprising ways.

fireattack 6y ago
I still think you missed the question. Game Theory, Seven Bridges of Königsberg, etc. were not raised by the game players, but mathematicians. And the original question is not arguing against the "usefulness" of these games themselves either; it's about the practice/endeavor of merely playing these games. >DeepBlue and AlphaGo and Watson /are/ playing the game DeepBlue and AlphaGo are playing the games. But they don't "think" or, in the OP's words, "waste their mental energy", since they are not even human beings. The designers of these AIs are not playing the games, though. That's what the question is about. >Also, playing, understanding, and thinking about these games To me, thinking about these games' mechanisms and/or how to optimizing them is totally different from the mental energy used in playing it. Again, I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with this sentiment (actually I strongly disagree), just trying to explain what the OG questions is in my understanding.

by fny 6y ago

fireattack 6y ago

I still think you missed the question. Game Theory, Seven Bridges of Königsberg, etc. were not raised by the game players, but mathematicians. And the original question is not arguing against the "usefulness" of these games themselves either; it's about the practice/endeavor of merely playing these games. >DeepBlue and AlphaGo and Watson /are/ playing the game DeepBlue and AlphaGo are playing the games. But they don't "think" or, in the OP's words, "waste their mental energy", since they are not even human beings. The designers of these AIs are not playing the games, though. That's what the question is about. >Also, playing, understanding, and thinking about these games To me, thinking about these games' mechanisms and/or how to optimizing them is totally different from the mental energy used in playing it. Again, I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with this sentiment (actually I strongly disagree), just trying to explain what the OG questions is in my understanding.