5 ms·
The weights must still have some understanding of the chess board. Though there is always the chance that it makes no sense to us
by vatsachak 7mo ago
The weights must still have some understanding of the chess board. Though there is always the chance that it makes no sense to us
- slopinthebag 7mo agoEven that is probably too much. It has no understanding of what "chess" is, or what a chess board is, or even what a game is. And yet it crushes every human with ease. It's pretty nuts haha.
- anematode 7mo agoActually, the neural net itself is fairly imprecise. Search is required for it to achieve good play. Here's an example of me beating Stockfish 18 at depth 1: https://lichess.org/XmITiqmi https://lichess.org/XmITiqmi
- Sopel 7mo agochess is just a simple mathematical construct so that's not surprising
- hollerith 7mo agoDoes Stockfish have weights or use a neural net? I know older versions did not.
- Sopel 7mo agoyes
- emp17344 7mo agoWhy must it involve understanding? I feel like you’re operating under the assumption that functionalism is the “correct” philosophical framework without considering alternative views.
- PowerElectronix 7mo agoThere is no understanding, the weights are selected based on better fit. Our cells have no understanding of optics just because they have the eyes coded in their DNA.