Robert, 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). The scare resource is human mind power producing advances on the main goal making a superior AI to what already exists. As the linguistic pathway hasn't emerged in Chess in the last decade, then I find it considerably less likely it will end up emerging for Go...unless you are, of course, suggesting that is something you are taking up. :)
The AI world is changing to make explaining computation cognition to humans less necessary, or even desirable. Why bound the solution space to only what cognitively linguistically limited humans can imagine and/or consider? And given even one AI team is thinking this way, the nature of competition will drive other competing teams to similar motivation(s). Welcome to "memetic evolution in action". Kind of makes those of us in the nearby human cognitive domains just a wee bit more nervous about what is rapidly approaching as human cognition automateable. For example, books about josekis could be rendered far less valuable if/when AlphaGo and some other AI competitor more strongly influenced by josekis pushes AlphaGo into new spaces which involve much longer resolution horizons than humans used for those that exist now. No matter what, the future sure does sound very exciting now that Alpha Go has broken the Go AI ceiling. I cannot WAIT to see the results of the event against Lee Sedol. Congratulations, Alpha Go team and Aja! Jim On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote: > On 01.02.2016 07:30, Petri Pitkanen wrote: > >> Explaining why the move is good in human terms is useless goal. Good chess >> programs cannot do it nor it is meaningful. As the humans and computers >> have vastly different approach to selecting a move then by the definition >> have reasons for moves. As an example your second item 'long-term aji', >> For >> human an important short cut but computer a mere result for seeing far >> enough in the future or combining several features of postion into >> non-linear/linear computation. >> > > Such is not "useless" but requires additional research or implementation. > > > -- > robert jasiek > _______________________________________________ > 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
