4 ms·

Yes, Deep Blue didn't "really understand chess", it just seemed to, and also happened to beat Kasparov in the process.

ChainOfFools 4y ago
I think the proper formulation of the argument is whether Deep Blue seemed-to-understand chess better than Kasparov seemed-to-understand chess. "Understanding" will turn out to be simply a compression with optimization toward survival of the compressing algorithm. When "survival" finally resolves into a conflict between different algorithms, the winner will be that compression algorithm which compresses those that cannot compress themselves.
FredPret 4y ago
Kasparov only seemed to play chess. Who knows what REALLY goes on in his head. Maybe he daydreams and randomly moves the pieces and he's really extremely lucky. Maybe he's only regurgitating chess moves he saw in a book. /s
mjburgess 4y ago
Yes, machines can out-perform humans; that's why we build them. A car with a rock on the peddle will out-run an olympic runner; but it isn't competing in a race. To play, to compete, to do any of these things is to intend. One has to have the relevant mental states to "play" at anything. A computer which scans a move tree and emits moves does not intend to do anything; it's just a car with a rock on the peddle. Of course it "wins", in as much as a river might, or a gust of wind. We are interested in games because we play them; not because we "arrive at a win condition". Winning is only significant because it's play, not because of the board state.
- calf 4y ago
  Furthermore anyone who studied branch and bound in algorithms class ought to understand that a chess engine wins games but does not understand the game and cannot explain the game. That's partly what Chomsky meant by explainability; the fact that AlphaGo/MuZero can beat humans at chess says nothing about rational intelligence any more than a conventional chess engine can beat humans says anything about its capacities. It says even less because a neural network obscures its own learned algorithm, by design.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
Wait, why is this important? That Deep Blue beat Kasprov? Why is it important, and for whom? Can you explain the importance of it? Is it important for... chess? science? civilisation? humanity? IBM? Whom? How? Why do we have to care at all, that a machine beat a human in anything? Why was such a big hullabaloo made back then? What is the point of beating humans with machines? And why are people always acting so triumphant about it, as if their home team scored a goal? Whose side are you guys, celebrating the successes of big corporations' AI systems, on, anyway? I mean, I really would like an answer to some of those questions at least because I am really confused by many of the attitudes of commenters in these discussions.
- nebulousthree 4y ago
  Underlying most of these attitudes is a fantasy of one day augmenting themselves beyond human abilities.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
    I don't know, does it? I really would like to hear an answer by the OP for example.
    - throw_pm23 4y ago
      It was a big deal because it seemed impossible before. People have thought a computer would never be able to play at that level because chess required some special human ability. The fact that it became possible was a major milestone. In some sense, beating the world champion may seem an arbitrary threshold, but it is important both symbolically and practically. That it is seen less impressive after the fact by some people is a different issue. Also it was a big gain for chess itself. Although it is a game that has been studied for hundreds of years, the last decades have revealed new lines of play, openings, endgame theory, etc. inspired by computer chess. It was a big deal in a similar way a machine that can fly was a big deal. I hope this explains my perspective.
      - 4y ago

I think the proper formulation of the argument is whether Deep Blue seemed-to-understand chess better than Kasparov seemed-to-understand chess. "Understanding" will turn out to be simply a compression with optimization toward survival of the compressing algorithm. When "survival" finally resolves into a conflict between different algorithms, the winner will be that compression algorithm which compresses those that cannot compress themselves.

FredPret 4y ago

Kasparov only seemed to play chess. Who knows what REALLY goes on in his head. Maybe he daydreams and randomly moves the pieces and he's really extremely lucky. Maybe he's only regurgitating chess moves he saw in a book. /s

mjburgess 4y ago

Yes, machines can out-perform humans; that's why we build them. A car with a rock on the peddle will out-run an olympic runner; but it isn't competing in a race. To play, to compete, to do any of these things is to intend. One has to have the relevant mental states to "play" at anything. A computer which scans a move tree and emits moves does not intend to do anything; it's just a car with a rock on the peddle. Of course it "wins", in as much as a river might, or a gust of wind. We are interested in games because we play them; not because we "arrive at a win condition". Winning is only significant because it's play, not because of the board state.

calf 4y ago
Furthermore anyone who studied branch and bound in algorithms class ought to understand that a chess engine wins games but does not understand the game and cannot explain the game. That's partly what Chomsky meant by explainability; the fact that AlphaGo/MuZero can beat humans at chess says nothing about rational intelligence any more than a conventional chess engine can beat humans says anything about its capacities. It says even less because a neural network obscures its own learned algorithm, by design.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago

Wait, why is this important? That Deep Blue beat Kasprov? Why is it important, and for whom? Can you explain the importance of it? Is it important for... chess? science? civilisation? humanity? IBM? Whom? How? Why do we have to care at all, that a machine beat a human in anything? Why was such a big hullabaloo made back then? What is the point of beating humans with machines? And why are people always acting so triumphant about it, as if their home team scored a goal? Whose side are you guys, celebrating the successes of big corporations' AI systems, on, anyway? I mean, I really would like an answer to some of those questions at least because I am really confused by many of the attitudes of commenters in these discussions.

nebulousthree 4y ago
Underlying most of these attitudes is a fantasy of one day augmenting themselves beyond human abilities.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  I don't know, does it? I really would like to hear an answer by the OP for example.
  - throw_pm23 4y ago
    It was a big deal because it seemed impossible before. People have thought a computer would never be able to play at that level because chess required some special human ability. The fact that it became possible was a major milestone. In some sense, beating the world champion may seem an arbitrary threshold, but it is important both symbolically and practically. That it is seen less impressive after the fact by some people is a different issue. Also it was a big gain for chess itself. Although it is a game that has been studied for hundreds of years, the last decades have revealed new lines of play, openings, endgame theory, etc. inspired by computer chess. It was a big deal in a similar way a machine that can fly was a big deal. I hope this explains my perspective.
    - 4y ago