On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 30 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:52:04 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:03:27 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Craig, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> From the Quora http://www.quora.com/Board-**Gam** >>>>>> es/What-are-some-fun-games-**to-**play-on-an-8x8-**Checkerboard-** >>>>>> besides-chess-**checkers<http://www.quora.com/Board-Games/What-are-some-fun-games-to-play-on-an-8x8-Checkerboard-besides-chess-checkers> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is interesting because I think it shows the weakness of the >>>>>> one-dimensional view of intelligence as computation. Whether a program >>>>>> can >>>>>> be designed to win or not is beside the point, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's not really fair, is it? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why not? >>>> >>> >>> How else can I counter your argument against intelligence as computation >>> if I am not allowed to use computation? My example would not prove that >>> it's what the brain does, but it would prove that it can be. You are >>> arguing that it cannot be. >>> >> >> I'm arguing that a screw is not the same thing as a nail because when you >> hammer a screw it doesn't go in as easily as a nail and when you use a >> screwdriver on a nail it doesn't go in at all. >> > > Ok. > > >> Sometimes the hammer is a better tool and sometimes the driver is. As >> humans, we have a great hammer and a decent screwdriver. A computer can't >> hammer anything, but it has a power screwdriver with a potentially infinite >> set of tips. >> > > Ok, but if I understand your ideas, you're claiming that the hammer is > also the fundamental stuff that reality is made of. Sorry if I'm > misrepresenting what you're saying. If I'm not, I don't understand why > computers can't have the hammer. > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> as it is the difference between this game and chess which hints at >>>>>> the differences between bottom-up mechanism and top-down intentionality >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I see what you're saying but I disagree. It just highlights the weak >>>>> points of tree-search approaches like min-max. What I gather from what >>>>> happens when one plays Arimaa (or Go): due to combinatorial explosion, >>>>> players (even human) play quite far away from the perfect game(s). The way >>>>> we deal with combinatorial explosion is by mapping the game into something >>>>> more abstract. >>>>> >>>> >>>> How do you know that any such mapping is going on? It seems like >>>> begging the question. >>>> >>> >>> I don't know. I have a strong intuition in it's favor for a few reasons, >>> scientific and otherwise. >>> >> >> Have you tried thinking about it another way? Where does 'mapping' come >> from? Can you begin mapping without already having a map? >> > > Yes, I think I begin with a map based on previous experiences and then > improve it as I discover it's weaknesses. I think the original map came > from brute-force experimentation while my brain was developing in my early > months of live. But this is just wild guessing, of course. > > >> >> >>> The non-scientific one is introspection. I try to observe my own >>> thought process and I think I use such mappings. >>> >> >> Maybe you do. Maybe a lot of people do. I don't think that I do though. I >> think that a game can be played directly without abstracting it into >> another game. >> > > Ok, I believe you but I don't have the same experience. My wife does. She > works in a creative field and she is very intuitive, with the typical > aversion for math. She can beat me at chess quite easily, without appearing > to resort to conscious strategic thinking. She describes it as doing what > "feels right". > > >> >> The scientific reason is that this type of approach has been >>> used successfully to tackle AI problems that could not be solved with >>> classical search algorithms. >>> >> >> I don't doubt that this game is likely to be solved eventually, maybe >> even soon, but the fact remains that it exposes some fundamentally >> different aesthetics between computation and intelligence. This is >> impressive to me because any game is already hugely biased in favor of >> computation. A game is ideal to be reduced to a set of logical rules, it's >> turn play is already a recursive enumeration. A game is already a computer >> program. Even so, we can see that it is possible to use a game to bypass >> computational values - of generic, unconscious repetition, and hint at >> something completely different and opposite. >> >> >>> >>> >>>> Put another way, if there were top-down non-computational effort going >>>> into the game play, why would it look any different than what we see? >>>> >>>> >>>>> Our brain seems to be quite good at generating such mappings. We do it >>>>> with chess too, I'm sure. Notice that, when two humans play Arimaa, both >>>>> can count on each other's inabilities to play close to the perfect game. >>>>> As >>>>> with games with incomplete information, like Poker, part of it is >>>>> modelling >>>>> the opponent. Perhaps not surprisingly, artificial neural networks are >>>>> quite good at producing useful mappings of this sort, and on predicting >>>>> behaviours with incomplete information. Great progress has been achieved >>>>> lately with deep learning. All this fits bottom-up mechanism and >>>>> intelligence as computation. It doesn't prove anything because I can't >>>>> attach the code for an excellent Arimaa player but, on the other hand, if >>>>> I >>>>> did I'm sure you'd come up with something else. :) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Except that playing Arimaa is not particularly taxing on the human >>>> player. There is no suggestion of any complex algorithms and mappings, >>>> rather it seems to me, there is simplicity. >>>> >>> >>> The mappings don't have to be complex at all (in terms of leading to >>> heavy computations). That's precisely their point. >>> >> >> Then shouldn't a powerful computer be able to quickly deduce the winning >> Arimaa mappings? >> > > You're making the same mistake as John Clark, confusing the physical > computer with the algorithm. Powerful computers don't help us if we don't > have the right algorithm. The central mystery of AI, in my opinion, is why > on earth haven't we found a general learning algorithm yet. > > > > Let us say that a program learn a function when it generates, from the > input-output description of a function, an infinite sequence of programs > eventually computing that function. They are looking to growing sequence of > input-output of the presented function. Then it has already been proved by > Putnam, by a diagonalization argument, that such a universal learner does > not exist. > > Now, you can weakened the identification criterion, by allowing that the > produced program makes an arbitrary big number of mistakes, and by allowing > the learner machine to change its mind (change the program she guessed), > even when the program she guessed provide a correct solution. Amazingly > enough this leads to universal learning algorithm, but they are impossible > to be used in practice (for theoretical reason). > Thanks Bruno! > > This is not a problem for strong AI, nor for comp, as universal human > learner does not seem to exist too. > We are talking about different things though. I don't mean general learner as in universal learner. I realize the latter is not possible. It's my fault, because I'm using a concept which is ill-defined. What I mean is essentially human-level learning abilities. Cheers, Telmo. > Learning competence is not scalable on a linear order ladder, but on > infinite lattice with a lot of incomparable degree. It can be shown in > general that machines making mistakes, and working in team, are far more > better learner than any individual machines, especially if they never make > mistakes. > > See: > > PUTNAM, H., 1965, Trial and error predicates and a solution to a problem > of Mostowski, > Journal of Symbolic Logic, 30, 1, pp. 49-57. > > GOLD, E. M., 1965, Limiting recursion, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 30, 1, > pp. 27-48. > > BLUM L. & BLUM M., 1975, Toward a Mathematical Theory of Inductive > Inference. > Information and Control 28,.pp. 125-155. > > CASE J. & SMITH C., 1983, Comparison of Identification Criteria for > Machine Inductive > Inference. In Theoretical Computer Science 25,.pp 193-220. > > > Bruno > > > > Either it's too complex for our monkey brains, or you're right that > computation is not the whole story. I believe in the former, but not I'm > not sure, of course. Notice that I'm talking about generic intelligence, > not consciousness, which I strongly believe to be two distinct phenomena. > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> The human finds no fundamental difference between the difficulty >>>> between Arimaa and Chess, yet there is a clear difference for the computer. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, the classical chess algorithms are clearly not how we do it. I >>> agree with you there. >>> >>> >>>> Again, if this does not indicate that there the model of intelligence >>>> as purely an assembly of logical parts, what actually would? In what way is >>>> the Strong AI position falsifiable? >>>> >>> >>> I agree, I don't think it's falsifiable and thus not a scientific >>> hypothesis in the Popperian sense. I see it more as an ambitious goal that >>> nobody even knows if it's achievable. You might be right, even if we manage >>> to create an AI that is undistinguishable from human intelligence. I prefer >>> to believe in Strong AI because I'm interested in it's consequences and in >>> the intellectual challenge of achieving it. That's all, to be honest. >>> >>> On the other hand, your hypothesis is also not falsifiable. >>> >> >> Sure, but mine doesn't pretend to be as it calls the whole notion of >> falsifiability as a criteria for addressing awareness into question. Strong >> AI though is a bet that awareness can be constructed through logic, and >> logic, especially digital logic, is all about the exclusive supremacy of >> true/false positions. I don't think that Strong AI is a bad goal if it >> drives curiosity and development - my beef with AI is completely >> incidental, I generally am happy with computer science and consider it one >> of the few healthy parts of civilization that remains. >> > > I think there's a very simple reason for that. Nobody can prevent me from > experimenting with my computer right now. I can try a new algorithm without > any paper work, permission from some regulatory body or even money. It's > free as in beer and free as in speech. People can replicate my results with > similar ease. So it's the only pure science left. It's also why I love > computers so much. > > >> I only argue against Strong AI because when I argue for this new picture >> of mind-matter-information unification, the argument that fights back is >> rooted in these assumptions about information states being concretely >> real...information states which we have knowingly contrived for the purpose >> of developing technology. We invented the Gigabyte and now we worship it as >> a mechanical anti-God. It's more of a public service than anything else to >> try to point out why that may actually prevent us or side track us from >> understanding consciousness. Strong AI may not really want to understand >> consciousness, and that's fine, but for those who do want to understand the >> physical phenomenon of awareness, they are being led down a dead end path >> by some very smart, very enthusiastic minds. >> > > I completely agree with you when it comes to consciousness. > > Best, > Telmo. > > >> >> Thanks, >> Craig >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> A lot of progress has been made in Poker, both in mapping the game to >>>>> something more abstract and modelling opponents: >>>>> http://poker.cs.ualberta.ca/ >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Telmo. >>>>> >>>>> PS: The expression "brute force" annoys me a bit. It implies that >>>>> traditional chess algorithms blindly search the entire space. That's just >>>>> not true, they do clever tree-pruning and use heuristics. Still, they are >>>>> indeed defeated by combinatorial explosion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It was a generalization, but I understood what they meant. The >>>> important thing is that the approach of computation is fundamentally >>>> passive and eliminative. Games which do not hinge on human intolerance for >>>> tedious recursive processes are going to be easier for computers because >>>> machines have no capacity for intolerance. The more tedious the better. >>>> Games which de-emphasize this as a criteria for success are less vulnerable >>>> to any recursive elimination. The more a game can reward spontaneous >>>> creativity, versatility, style, grace, broadminded eclectic >>>> interpretations, the more a computer will fail to duplicate a person's >>>> success. >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> In Arimaa, the rules invite personal preference as a spontaneous >>>>>> initiative from the start - thus it does not make the reductionist >>>>>> assumption of intelligence as a statistical extraction or 'best choice'. >>>>>> Game play here begins intuitively and strategy is more >>>>>> proprietary-private >>>>>> than generic-public. In addition the interaction of the pieces and >>>>>> inclusion of the four trap squares suggests a game geography which is >>>>>> rooted more in space-time sensibilities than in pure arithmetic like >>>>>> chess. >>>>>> I'm not sure which aspects are the most relevant in the difference >>>>>> between >>>>>> how a computer performs, but it seems likely to me that the difference is >>>>>> specifically *not* related to computing "power". To wit: >>>>>> >>>>>> "There are tens of thousands of possibilities in each turn in >>>>>> Arimaa. The 'brute force approach' to programming Arimaa fails miserably. >>>>>> Any human who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands down." >>>>>> >>>>>> This to me suggests that Arimaa does a good job of sniffing out the >>>>>> general area where top-down consciousness differs fundamentally from >>>>>> bottom >>>>>> up simulated intelligence. >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------****------------------------------**** >>>>>> ------------------------------****------------------------------**** >>>>>> -------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> *Arimaa, the strategy game that confounds computers! * >>>>>> It can be played, not only on an 8x8 chess board, but with the same >>>>>> chess pieces as well! >>>>>> The pieces are : >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. 8 Rabbits (Pawns) >>>>>> 2. 1 Elephant (King) >>>>>> 3. 1 Camel (Queen) >>>>>> 4. 2 Horses (Rooks) >>>>>> 5. 2 Dogs (Bishops) >>>>>> 6. 2 Cats (Knights) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It doesn't matter in what way you want the 2 horses/dogs/cats to be >>>>>> designated by the 2 bishops/knights/rooks. >>>>>> >>>>>> *What sets apart Arimaa from Chess?* >>>>>> >>>>>> - There is no draw in Arimaa. Good news for elimination >>>>>> tournaments. >>>>>> - In Arimaa, a player has 64,864,400 choices for the first turn. >>>>>> Thus unlike chess, memorizing openings is not gonna help you. >>>>>> - There are tens of thousands of possibilities in each turn in >>>>>> Arimaa. The 'brute force approach' to programming Arimaa fails >>>>>> miserably. >>>>>> Any human who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands >>>>>> down. >>>>>> - It places less emphasis on tactics. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe Arimaa is *way* better than chess in terms of abstract >>>>>> strategical thinking. It needs a higher level of intuition and >>>>>> understanding, discourages memorization and is simple to learn and play. >>>>>> It >>>>>> took me some time to play good chess, but it took me a small fraction of >>>>>> that time to learn and play good Arimaa. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Arimaa community is offering $10,000 for anyone who can come up >>>>>> with a program able to beat a top-level human Arimaa player, by 2020 : >>>>>> The >>>>>> Arimaa Challenge <http://arimaa.com/arimaa/challenge/> >>>>>> This will help us to attain the next pinnacle in Artificial >>>>>> Intelligence Programming. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Rules :* >>>>>> In the starting, both players arrange the pieces in whatever way they >>>>>> fashion in their first two rows, something like this : >>>>>> >>>>>> The pieces can move only one square horizontally or vertically. In >>>>>> case of rabbits, you can only move upwards or sideways. You have four >>>>>> moves >>>>>> to play in each turn. >>>>>> >>>>>> In order of their power, the *pieces can either **'push'** or ** >>>>>> 'pull'** other pieces of the opponent*. In addition to this, if a >>>>>> less powerful piece of yours is adjacent to a more powerful piece of the >>>>>> opponent's, then your piece will be *frozen, **unless your piece is >>>>>> adjacent to another one of your pieces.* >>>>>> >>>>>> The order of power is as follows : >>>>>> *Elephant > Camel > Horse > Dog > Cat > Rabbit* >>>>>> That is, your camel will be able to push or pull the opponent's >>>>>> horse/dog/cat/rabbit. You can freeze the horse/dog/cat/rabbit if it >>>>>> doesn't >>>>>> have any friendly piece adjacent to it. >>>>>> *Elephants are all-powerful* : they cannot be pushed, pulled or >>>>>> frozen. >>>>>> >>>>>> See those dark squares in the diagram above? They are *'Trap Squares' >>>>>> *. If any of your piece lands in here and if there is no adjacent >>>>>> friendly piece to it, your piece will be 'captured'. >>>>>> >>>>>> *So, How do you win? * >>>>>> >>>>>> - Your goal is to get one of your rabbits to the last row(or home >>>>>> rank). Whoever manages to do this first, wins. >>>>>> - If you manage to capture all your opponent's rabbits, you win. >>>>>> - If your opponent has no legal move, you win. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Since one of the above situations is bound to occur, there is *no* * >>>>>> draw* in Arimaa. This is unlike chess where there is an unusually >>>>>> high probability of a draw. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to everything-li...@**googlegroups.**com. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >>>>>> >>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group** >>>>>> /everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >>>>>> . >>>>>> For more options, visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/**grou**ps/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to everything-li...@**googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
