3 ms·
A computer recently designed a published board game called Yavalath, by deciding whether randomly generated games are interesting or not. That algorithm wouldn'
by ximeng 13y ago
A computer recently designed a published board game called Yavalath, by deciding whether randomly generated games are interesting or not. That algorithm wouldn't be difficult to integrate into Google if they decided to do it. As you add more and more capabilities to Google at a more abstract level (design something "fun" like here), it's closer and closer to general purpose AI. It's not just that, see also http://www.gamesbyangelina.org/ http://www.gamesbyangelina.org/ .
- simonh 13y agoDid the algorithm decide what the characteristics of an interesting game are, or were they hard-coded? Could is analyze the interestingness of games generally? Could it analyze why some people like some games and other people don't? If it couldn't do these things, then it was in no way intelligent, because it was not analyzing at a conceptual level. Programs that simply optimize data towards a set of target characteristics are clever, but not intelligent. Hofstadter goes into this in the article. You're making exactly the same mistake those over-optimistic AI researchers made back in the 60s. They created some whiz-bang optimisation algorithms and thought general purpose AI must be just around the corner, but it turns out that actual conceptual analysis and reasoning is a completely different and fundamentally unrelated problem.
- Houshalter 13y agoThat's an arbitrary distinction. The goal might have been decided by human programmers, that doesn't mean the process isn't itself intelligent. You are right it is using a crude optimization process that is a lot weaker than human intelligence, but it's still "intelligent".