On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Álvaro Begué <alvaro.be...@gmail.com>wrote:
> We should let go of this idea that artificial neural networks have
> anything to do with the brain. ANNs are just a family of parametric
> functions (often with too many parameters for their own good) and
> associated tuning algorithms ("learning" is a bit pretentious).
> Perhaps they took vague inspiration in a cartoonish version of the
> brain, but that's about it.
>
> People tried to make flying machines by imitating birds for a long
> time. Planes and helicopters fly, but not like birds do it. Similarly,
> I believe that whenever we figure out how to make machines that play
> go well, they will not do it like a brain does it.
>
> Álvaro.
>
>
Yes, I agree. It's very common in my opinion to try to bend the program too
much to how "we" do it. It's natural to try to imitate humans because
humans are indeed superior. But our hardware is so different that it does
not always make sense to imitate us.
Even among humans we do not always try to imitate each other, if we
recognize that something is missing. For instance a short basketball
player will need to play a different kind of game than a very tall
basketball player. He would choose a style that emphasized his strengths
and minimized his weaknesses.
In fact it's likely that we would be placing limitations on the computer if
we tried to imitate people too much. Right now chess programs are
superior to human players, but nobody has ever suggested that perhaps we
should try to imitate them!
Having said all of that, it's still important to analyze what works for
humans that perhaps could be effectively used for our programs. We just
don't want to take this too far if it's doesn't work.
- Don
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
