https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ67q4pv0HI
Good qualitative review (though 3 hours) of present Standard Theory ... the basis of current materialism.
Notice that this popularization uses its own mythos ... to present it (two people who have travelled to the future). I find retro scifi more interesting, alternative past, not alternative future. For example, the British government giving Babbage more support, which creates an earlier computer revolution, leading to a much more world dominance by the British Empire.
Yeah, they should've given Ada Lovelace more support and encouragement, as well:
How Ada Lovelace, Lord Byron’s Daughter, Became the World’s First Computer Programmer (https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/12/10/ada-lovelace-walter-isaacson-innovators/)
QuoteHow a young woman with the uncommon talent of applying poetic imagination to science envisioned the Symbolic Medea that would become the modern computer, sparking the birth of the digital age.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 07, 2018, 05:20:02 PM
Yeah, they should've given Ada Lovelace more support and encouragement, as well:
How Ada Lovelace, Lord Byron’s Daughter, Became the World’s First Computer Programmer (https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/12/10/ada-lovelace-walter-isaacson-innovators/)
But she would have set back the world wide domination of AI by decades, because she denied computers can think, in her very first paper ;-)
Well, she was right - computers can't think. A chess-playing (or Go-playing) computer isn't thinking, it's just looking at numbers.
I believe the intention of the Analytical Engine was decimal ... so not binary ... like modern computers. But functionally the same thing. A few modern electronic computers tried to do decimal, but binary was a lot easier.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 08, 2018, 01:42:24 PM
Well, she was right - computers can't think. A chess-playing (or Go-playing) computer isn't thinking, it's just looking at numbers.
Which is why I stopped playing computers at chess. Part of chess is the threat that causes your opponent to move, sometimes to disadvantage.
A player can be caused to worry about a threat; a computer can't.
And there is another thing that annoys me about playing chess against a computer. To make the computer "play equal" to me, the computer has to DELIBERATELY make some errors. DELIBERATELY! That's cheating.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 08, 2018, 01:42:24 PM
Well, she was right - computers can't think. A chess-playing (or Go-playing) computer isn't thinking, it's just looking at numbers.
How is that different to what you do when you're considering your next move on a chessboard?
Quote from: Jason78 on February 02, 2018, 07:18:50 AM
How is that different to what you do when you're considering your next move on a chessboard?
Threatening your opponent. Watching him ("usually him") sweat on a move. Seeing the uncertainty of his moves. Knowing when the Knight is more dangerous than the Bishop.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 12:24:47 PM
Threatening your opponent. Watching him ("usually him") sweat on a move. Seeing the uncertainty of his moves. Knowing when the Knight is more dangerous than the Bishop.
That is how I have had interesting chess games. That and they know the baseball bat can be brought out!
Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2018, 12:51:46 PM
That is how I have had interesting chess games. That and they know the baseball bat can be brought out!
Would you like to play a game?
Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 01:02:33 PM
Would you like to play a game?
When I retire. But so hard to intimidate thru the Internet.
Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2018, 01:04:37 PM
When I retire. But so hard to intimidate thru the Internet.
Ask Mr.Obvious about that... We have quite a game going.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 05:37:57 AM
Which is why I stopped playing computers at chess. Part of chess is the threat that causes your opponent to move, sometimes to disadvantage.
A player can be caused to worry about a threat; a computer can't.
And there is another thing that annoys me about playing chess against a computer. To make the computer "play equal" to me, the computer has to DELIBERATELY make some errors. DELIBERATELY! That's cheating.
Yeah, and in order to make the computer play on my level it takes a long time to make its move - at least on the cheap one I've seen so far. I had one called Excalibur that would take an hour or more to move on the higher levels. It wasn't too bad on the lower levels, but not really that challenging. And, as you say, half the fun of chess is watching your opponent squirm!
Quote from: Jason78 on February 02, 2018, 07:18:50 AM
How is that different to what you do when you're considering your next move on a chessboard?
I look at patterns, not numbers. Although when considering a tactical move numbers are involved, such as how many pieces I have threatening a square and how many my opponent has defending it, but mostly it's the patterns that count. When you get right down to it though, according to
Max Tegmark (and others) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis), there exists nothing
but number in the universe.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 02, 2018, 01:45:27 PM
I look at patterns, not numbers. Although when considering a tactical move numbers are involved, such as how many pieces I have threatening a square and how many my opponent has defending it, but mostly it's the patterns that count. When you get right down to it though, according to Max Tegmark (and others) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis), there exists nothing but number in the universe.
I was President of the University of Maryland Chess Club at one time (meaning only that I was a potzer who could organize the tournaments). We had one guy who was always on grass before games. You COULD NOT BEAT him on the part of the board he focused on, but the other half was free-range. LOL!
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 02, 2018, 01:45:27 PM
I look at patterns, not numbers. Although when considering a tactical move numbers are involved, such as how many pieces I have threatening a square and how many my opponent has defending it, but mostly it's the patterns that count. When you get right down to it though, according to Max Tegmark (and others) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis), there exists nothing but number in the universe.
Sure. The only component of the universe is Pythagoras, who died about 2500 years ago ;-)
All "theory of everything" I think, per SGOS recent question, are bridges too far.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 05:37:57 AM
Which is why I stopped playing computers at chess. Part of chess is the threat that causes your opponent to move, sometimes to disadvantage.
A player can be caused to worry about a threat; a computer can't.
And there is another thing that annoys me about playing chess against a computer. To make the computer "play equal" to me, the computer has to DELIBERATELY make some errors. DELIBERATELY! That's cheating.
And yet, it took until Deep Blue in 1997 for a computer to beat a reigning world champion under regular time controls. Clearly there's more to the game than just data crunching. Kasparov himself said some of the computer's moves suggested genuine thought and creativity, although I think that's unlikely.
Interestingly, relative to your last point, Nate Silver suggests that it was a flaw in the software that led to Deep Blue's 44th move in game 1 of the rematch, the one that blew Kasparov's mind and may have shaken him enough to cost him the match. Silver suggests that Deep Blue simply was unable to come up with a most optimal move, and instead played a 'fail safe' move. Kasparov thought it was so counterintuitive a play, either the machine was really thinking, or a human was intervening. After that, he lost twice, drew thrice, and went down 3½-2½.
I was working for IBM at the time. The intranet coverage was
wonderful.
Now they have Alpha Zero, that seems to play even more intuitively sometimes.
Alpha Zero’s “Alien†Chess Shows the Power, and the Peculiarity, of AI (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609736/alpha-zeros-alien-chess-shows-the-power-and-the-peculiarity-of-ai/)
QuoteThe latest advance from DeepMind behaves in a very surprising way. Expect other AI systems to be just as odd.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 12:24:47 PM
Threatening your opponent. Watching him ("usually him") sweat on a move. Seeing the uncertainty of his moves. Knowing when the Knight is more dangerous than the Bishop.
Threat levels are quantifiable.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 04, 2018, 05:13:36 PM
Now they have Alpha Zero, that seems to play even more intuitively sometimes.
Alpha Zero’s “Alien†Chess Shows the Power, and the Peculiarity, of AI (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609736/alpha-zeros-alien-chess-shows-the-power-and-the-peculiarity-of-ai/)
This actually shouldn't be a surprise. There's a sort of assumption that when we talk about an artificial intelligence, we're talking about an artificial
human-like intelligence (which I will abbreviate AHLI), like HAL 9000 without the murderous streak (or with it, depending on your thinking about AI).
The thing is, our sensory input is necessarily a part of what makes up our intelligence. I don't think we'll ever have an AHLI until we can give the machine at least one of the senses we take for granted, and probably more than one. We can have an AI without that, but we shouldn't expect it to 'think' (and I use the term with caution) like we do because it doesn't experience information input like we do.
So I'm not at all surprised that Alpha Zero doesn't play chess in a recognizable way, but still plays it extremely well. It doesn't experience the game like we do, assuming it "experiences" the game in any manner we understand. It wasn't taught by a grandmaster with his/her own personality and prejudices, it didn't read the literature, it doesn't have an experience of the history of the game, it has no concept of personally looking foolish, and it doesn't have an opinion about whether a move "looks weird". It just has an analysis chain that says this works, and whether it's a theoretical novelty or not is of no relevance whatsoever.
I doubt that Alpha Zero is sentient on any level that we would recognize as sentience in a living entity. However, it may force us to widen our perspective on what does and does not constitute intelligent behaviorâ€"in the age of SETI, this is probably a good thing.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 02, 2018, 01:37:19 PM
Ask Mr.Obvious about that... We have quite a game going.
Next time we play in one setting, with facecam. ;)
Quote from: trdsf on February 04, 2018, 03:05:51 PM
And yet, it took until Deep Blue in 1997 for a computer to beat a reigning world champion under regular time controls. Clearly there's more to the game than just data crunching. Kasparov himself said some of the computer's moves suggested genuine thought and creativity, although I think that's unlikely.
Interestingly, relative to your last point, Nate Silver suggests that it was a flaw in the software that led to Deep Blue's 44th move in game 1 of the rematch, the one that blew Kasparov's mind and may have shaken him enough to cost him the match. Silver suggests that Deep Blue simply was unable to come up with a most optimal move, and instead played a 'fail safe' move. Kasparov thought it was so counterintuitive a play, either the machine was really thinking, or a human was intervening. After that, he lost twice, drew thrice, and went down 3½-2½.
I was working for IBM at the time. The intranet coverage was wonderful.
Well, yes. I wasn't playing a really good computer. I meant more that I can't beat even a weak computer program. I depend a lot on making confusing situations. A computer doesn't care, but a person does.