Re:Google achieves AI 'breakthrough' by beating Go champion
by unclebucknasty on Thursday January 28, 2016 @09:45AM
(#10988403)
I guess I am asking whether it's valid to criticize the AI for not answering questions that it wasn't asked.
For instance, it wasn't asked to evaluate the pawn structure and provide that analysis as an output, but it certainly could be programmed to do so.
Re:Google achieves AI 'breakthrough' by beating Go champion
by jibalt on Sunday January 31, 2016 @01:54AM
(#11005542)
"For instance, it wasn't asked to evaluate the pawn structure and provide that analysis as an output, but it certainly could be programmed to do so."
This quite misses the point. These programs do that as a matter of course, for individual positions. But choosing a move is the result of evaluating many millions of positions and comparing the scores through tree pruning. The program cannot tell you that it chose one move over another because the chosen move is generally better for the pawn structure than the move not chosen, because it doesn't have that information and cannot obtain it.
Re:Google achieves AI 'breakthrough' by beating Go champion
by unclebucknasty on Thursday February 04, 2016 @07:42PM
(#11038526)
>This quite misses the point.
Or, maybe you missed mine.
Historically there has been a back-and-forth with chess engines....
Early engines tried to really "smart", but consequently couldn't really analyze very deeply, as they spent a lot of time on each position. Newer engines mostly churn through really deep analysis, going many layers deep, but are making comparatively simplistic analyses.