4 ms·

>chess was supposed to be a demonstration of human intelligence. why would brute forcing tons of chess moves would be intelligence and not search. Aren't ANN

>chess was supposed to be a demonstration of human intelligence. why would brute forcing tons of chess moves would be intelligence and not search. Aren't ANN just some kind of brute forcing, just that this time brute forcing happens at training time. True intelligence could reason and adapt, the AI should be able to play any chess variant I invent without new training or if it is that smart should be able to defeat a human at any new task for both of them. But yeah, many things that are not intelligent were called AI, like expert systems where the human had to define all the rules, or genetic algorithms where the hard part was made by humans by defining the encoding and the fitting functions, same for the ANN , the humans need to dot he hard part, collect good data , define the ANN parameters, then train and evaluate the results. AI is so pathetic that the big software developers could not integrate it with coding, so you could do something like "Hey AI I need you to implement an integration with this API, find an SDK/library or implement it from the documentation and when my user uploads a photo use the xxx function of this API".

FartyMcFarter 6y ago
> Aren't ANN just some kind of brute forcing, just that this time brute forcing happens at training time. Not by any definition of "brute force" that I know about. Brute force implies searching through all possibilities, which is impossible in chess as there are too many of them.
- simion314 6y ago
  Not all possibilities, even basic algorithms will avoid testing invalid or obvious bad moves or do some kind of backtracking. I did not studied this NN for chess, I am wondering if they just compressed the search space while training so searching is much faster.
  - morlockabove 6y ago
    How is that not what humans do?
    - simion314 6y ago
      People don't play billions of games to train. I think we have a mechanism to eliminate irrelevant inputs, focus on what is important and then we have the abstractisation and generalization tools. Then we can reuse same modules in our mind to play RTS games that are more complex then chess. Anyway do you disagree that ANN are just a search/function approximation ? Or you think that when you played an RTS for first time the brain already had itself trained from genetics or previous experienced playing in the sand and you could win on the easy difficulty level without any training on millions of games.
Thiez 6y ago
> why would brute forcing tons of chess moves would be intelligence and not search. Aren't ANN just some kind of brute forcing, just that this time brute forcing happens at training time. Right, so it's okay for humans to spend literally years training their biological neural networks, throughout their entire lives. And in addition to that spend thousands of hours honing skill such as chess (we'll call it "practice"). But when a machine starts from nothing and does the same, suddenly it's not intelligence, we don't call it "practice", we call it "brute forcing at training time". > True intelligence could reason and adapt, the AI should be able to play any chess variant I invent without new training or if it is that smart should be able to defeat a human at any new task for both of them. Sure, let's take chess, and modify the rules. At the start of your turn flip a coin, on heads: pawns can move left and right instead of forward. On tails: swap one of your own pawns with a pawn of your opponent. Will our chess grandmasters pick up this new game immediately without new training, or will they struggle initially? Your requirements for artificial intelligence are much higher than for ordinary human intelligence.
- simion314 6y ago
  I disagree. Get your best AI and make it play Minecraft, then same AI make it play a RTS, then make it play an RPG. It will not work and a child will beat it at everything. The reason is we can understand stuff at a higher level, then we can create strategy like offensive, defensive, we learn from mistakes and don't randomly search for solutions. About chess I bet a grand-master will beat your AI at chess if you swap those rules and you don't retrain the AI, you can only update the rules. The AI only sees numbers and functions, no goals, sub objectives etc.

FartyMcFarter 6y ago

> Aren't ANN just some kind of brute forcing, just that this time brute forcing happens at training time. Not by any definition of "brute force" that I know about. Brute force implies searching through all possibilities, which is impossible in chess as there are too many of them.

simion314 6y ago
Not all possibilities, even basic algorithms will avoid testing invalid or obvious bad moves or do some kind of backtracking. I did not studied this NN for chess, I am wondering if they just compressed the search space while training so searching is much faster.
- morlockabove 6y ago
  How is that not what humans do?
  - simion314 6y ago
    People don't play billions of games to train. I think we have a mechanism to eliminate irrelevant inputs, focus on what is important and then we have the abstractisation and generalization tools. Then we can reuse same modules in our mind to play RTS games that are more complex then chess. Anyway do you disagree that ANN are just a search/function approximation ? Or you think that when you played an RTS for first time the brain already had itself trained from genetics or previous experienced playing in the sand and you could win on the easy difficulty level without any training on millions of games.

Thiez 6y ago

> why would brute forcing tons of chess moves would be intelligence and not search. Aren't ANN just some kind of brute forcing, just that this time brute forcing happens at training time. Right, so it's okay for humans to spend literally years training their biological neural networks, throughout their entire lives. And in addition to that spend thousands of hours honing skill such as chess (we'll call it "practice"). But when a machine starts from nothing and does the same, suddenly it's not intelligence, we don't call it "practice", we call it "brute forcing at training time". > True intelligence could reason and adapt, the AI should be able to play any chess variant I invent without new training or if it is that smart should be able to defeat a human at any new task for both of them. Sure, let's take chess, and modify the rules. At the start of your turn flip a coin, on heads: pawns can move left and right instead of forward. On tails: swap one of your own pawns with a pawn of your opponent. Will our chess grandmasters pick up this new game immediately without new training, or will they struggle initially? Your requirements for artificial intelligence are much higher than for ordinary human intelligence.

simion314 6y ago
I disagree. Get your best AI and make it play Minecraft, then same AI make it play a RTS, then make it play an RPG. It will not work and a child will beat it at everything. The reason is we can understand stuff at a higher level, then we can create strategy like offensive, defensive, we learn from mistakes and don't randomly search for solutions. About chess I bet a grand-master will beat your AI at chess if you swap those rules and you don't retrain the AI, you can only update the rules. The AI only sees numbers and functions, no goals, sub objectives etc.