On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:59 PM Jim Bromer via AGI <[email protected]> wrote:
> .... Each game could be reduced to a conveniently > finite number of reactions and principles. So if someone wanted to waste his time he could create a simple physics-like modelling program > that could learn to play the games. The complexities could be refined > or reduced to a relatively simple set of actions. Clearly this is totally inaccurate as it relates to the game of Go -- which is known for its rapid rate of combinatorial explosion -- at which Hassabis's team has beat the world's leading human expert. The type of causal inference his system developed in that effort is much more subtle that that of any human. ....The fact that the program had some generality is > interesting, but I think the success is due to the relative simplicity > and underlying similarities, relative to their realm of artificial > physics, of the different games. > My comment above applies equally to this sentence. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T0f9fecad94e3ce7e-M053a95d03e97d0a7155d20ff Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
