Gonçalo wrote, "Well, I'd argue there is nothing inherently superior about copying the human natural processes..."
I couldn't agree more! What inspires me about biological evolution is it's fantastic use of temporal accretion compression; i.e. DNA viewed as fractals. Given that meta-"natural process", I'm very much interested in exploring emerging a Go playing mechanism from something similar; i.e. creating simple leaf mechanisms which are then encoded into meta leafs, which are then incorporated into meta-meta-leafs. The idea would be a computational social organism approach to the game, from start to finish. And if biological evolution is any intuitive informer in predicting the outcome of this line of thinking, if what emerges is eventually capable of playing high level Go, it will not be reducable to either human linguistic nor human rational principals. Just because we thought up the rules in human term doesn't require a computational player to cogitate in the same way as the rules originator. On Sep 27, 2015 6:41 AM, "Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira" <go...@sapo.pt> wrote: > Well, I'd argue there is nothing inherently superior about copying the > human natural processes, instead of using our intellect to find a way to > achieve better results in simpler ways. Humans were also not born with > domain over tools, or fire, do you suppose there are two kinds of people, > the curious and the ones that didn't go extinct? > > Of course knowing about ourselves is interesting by itself, but I think we > have already a good idea of how our brains work (at least while playing > Go), and for practical reasons those same processes are just not as > feasible to apply with the tools we have. > > If you are writing a Go program that attempts to be competitive, then it > will be judged based on that. It doesn't make sense to complain that people > are not writing competitive programs using techniques that showed poor > returns in the past. > > Gonçalo F. > > As a sidenote, I'd be very much interested in a Go program that attempted > to evaluate Go aesthetics, like Chesthetica did for western chess. > > On 09/27/2015 10:11 AM, djhbrown . wrote: > >> it rather depends on what you think AI is all about and what you want to >> achieve. >> >> there are two kinds of people in the world: those who are curious, and >> those who just want to make yet another cloned ticky-tacky mousetrap so >> they can compete on the Go playing-field because they're no good at >> football or kung-fu or [rest left unsaid]. >> >> If you want to write a go-playing program in a hurry, don't waste your >> time >> talking to me; just do what most others do and just follow/copy Mogo/Crazy >> Stone, possibly adding a tweak or two of your own, and stick your "look >> ma, >> no hands" robot on a server with all the others. >> >> If instead you would like to participate in a project to build a Go >> program >> that uses hierarchical planning and reasoning, you can talk to me. You >> could start by googling me and reading my papers and the papers of others >> that reference mine. And the ones that don't. Start with De Groot's >> seminal book entitled "Thought and Choice in Chess". Then read everything >> Herbert Simon has ever written. And Minsky, and and and. >> >> Please be aware that i envisage it would take dozens of programmers dozens >> of years for what i have in mind to get anywhere. At 66, i won't live >> long >> enough to see it happen. And even after all that effort, although a >> program can be written that would be able to tell you what it is thinking >> in a way that makes sense to people, it probably wouldn't perform at >> shodan >> level, let alone be as strong as Zen19, let alone a future "Son of Big >> Blue >> + Watson", which would probably use simple pattern-matching database >> search >> + MCTS blind random search and/or CNN or, more likely, a novel >> variant/synthesis of them on a massively parallel computer. Zen19's >> authors tell me it improved its performance an entire rank by shifting >> from >> a single processor to 4 processors on a 1Gb Ethernet. Watson has about >> 30,000 processors on a 100Gb Ethernet i think. >> >> Whichever route you try, you are unlikely to get anywhere non-trivial >> doing >> it on your own, unless you are a Mozart of the keyboard and had produced >> impressive programs by the age of 8 years old. After you reach the ripe >> old age of 19, your brain basically stops growing except for a few neurons >> in your neocortex to stop you doing thoughtless teenage things; apart from >> that, your learning curve is downhill from then on... >> > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
