On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 8:10 AM Bob Sneidar via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> I don't think it needs to store ALL the permutations, only the viable > ones, the ones that lead to success. That has to be a much smaller number. There are only three outcomes: win, lose, draw. Even if the breakdown is 0.1% win, 0.1% lose, and 99.8% draw, that would still be far more positions than could be stored using all the computing power on Earth, a billion times over. > But I was using that as an example of the mathematical nature of Chess. I > think what we must mean by AI is that through recursion, a computer can > retain successful paths to success (success being that which we define as > success in the process.) I don't think we will ever see the day where a > computer, lacking experience and all the data for a problem, can "reason" > it's way to success. > That's almost exactly what AlphaZero did: it was given the rules for moves, and a definition of win conditions, and then played against itself. It wasn't given any info on existing openings or endgames. It was entirely self-taught, in 9 hours. I think the only reason to say that it didn't reason about the game is that we *do* understand how it works at a low level, and at an abstract level, but we *don't* understand the specifics about how it works at a high level. It's the same way I might understand what a chess master means when they say a move is better because it's more active; I understand what "active" means in general, but I would likely not be able to say why that move was more active than several other moves. gc _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
