Well, I'd argue there is nothing inherently superior about copying the
human natural processes, instead of using our intellect to find a way to
achieve better results in simpler ways. Humans were also not born with
domain over tools, or fire, do you suppose there are two kinds of
people, the curious and the ones that didn't go extinct?
Of course knowing about ourselves is interesting by itself, but I think
we have already a good idea of how our brains work (at least while
playing Go), and for practical reasons those same processes are just not
as feasible to apply with the tools we have.
If you are writing a Go program that attempts to be competitive, then it
will be judged based on that. It doesn't make sense to complain that
people are not writing competitive programs using techniques that showed
poor returns in the past.
Gonçalo F.
As a sidenote, I'd be very much interested in a Go program that
attempted to evaluate Go aesthetics, like Chesthetica did for western chess.
On 09/27/2015 10:11 AM, djhbrown . wrote:
it rather depends on what you think AI is all about and what you want to
achieve.
there are two kinds of people in the world: those who are curious, and
those who just want to make yet another cloned ticky-tacky mousetrap so
they can compete on the Go playing-field because they're no good at
football or kung-fu or [rest left unsaid].
If you want to write a go-playing program in a hurry, don't waste your time
talking to me; just do what most others do and just follow/copy Mogo/Crazy
Stone, possibly adding a tweak or two of your own, and stick your "look ma,
no hands" robot on a server with all the others.
If instead you would like to participate in a project to build a Go program
that uses hierarchical planning and reasoning, you can talk to me. You
could start by googling me and reading my papers and the papers of others
that reference mine. And the ones that don't. Start with De Groot's
seminal book entitled "Thought and Choice in Chess". Then read everything
Herbert Simon has ever written. And Minsky, and and and.
Please be aware that i envisage it would take dozens of programmers dozens
of years for what i have in mind to get anywhere. At 66, i won't live long
enough to see it happen. And even after all that effort, although a
program can be written that would be able to tell you what it is thinking
in a way that makes sense to people, it probably wouldn't perform at shodan
level, let alone be as strong as Zen19, let alone a future "Son of Big Blue
+ Watson", which would probably use simple pattern-matching database search
+ MCTS blind random search and/or CNN or, more likely, a novel
variant/synthesis of them on a massively parallel computer. Zen19's
authors tell me it improved its performance an entire rank by shifting from
a single processor to 4 processors on a 1Gb Ethernet. Watson has about
30,000 processors on a 100Gb Ethernet i think.
Whichever route you try, you are unlikely to get anywhere non-trivial doing
it on your own, unless you are a Mozart of the keyboard and had produced
impressive programs by the age of 8 years old. After you reach the ripe
old age of 19, your brain basically stops growing except for a few neurons
in your neocortex to stop you doing thoughtless teenage things; apart from
that, your learning curve is downhill from then on...
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
