On 01.02.2016 15:15, Jim O'Flaherty wrote:
I'm not seeing the ROI in attempting to map human idiosyncratic linguistic
systems to/into a Go engine. Which language would be the one to use;
English, Chinese, Japanese, etc? As abstraction goes deeper, the nuance of
each human language diverges from the others (due to the way the human
brain is just a fractal based analogy making engine). [...]
> unless you are, of course, suggesting that is something
you are taking up. :)
The human language for interaction with / translation to programming
language includes
- well-defined terms / concepts
- rules / principles with stated presuppositions
- methods / procedures / informal algorithms
- proofs / strong evidence for the aforementioned being correct /
successful (always or to some extent)
Of course, I am an example of a person having been doing this for many
years. In fact, I might be the leading generalist for go theory expert
knowledge stated in writing.
The AI world is changing to make explaining computation cognition to humans
less necessary, or even desirable.
I disagree strongly.
Almost all the AI world has done is creating strong programs. Explaining
human thinking and explaining program thinking in terms of human
thinking is as important as it has always been.
Why bound the solution space to only
what cognitively linguistically limited humans can imagine and/or consider?
Indeed. I prefer to exceed limitations by creating new terms,
definitions for undefined terms, principles, methods etc. Human beings
can better learn if they know what to learn because the contents is
described clearly.
about what is rapidly
approaching as human cognition automateable.
Eh? Besides GoTools, there has been very little, AFAIK.
--
robert jasiek
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
