|
|
|
|
|
by orthoganol
3155 days ago
|
|
You're still extremely optimistic about the 'intelligence' of state of art data driven approaches, even if they aren't general intelligence. I'm not sure where that optimism is coming from. The chess example... "They were wrong about AI never beating grand masters, they're going to be wrong about X". Well, if you make the board bigger, there won't be an AI system that can beat a human. Play Dota 2, but introduce a random variable that can't be known beforehand by anyone, like things in the real world, and the AI will always be beatable. Great for specific domains, obviously, but your optimism about doing more advanced stuff, perhaps doesn't seem so grounded. |
|
I wonder about a board game that randomizes the rules in simple ways. A human could understand the rule changes and adapt. To what extent can software be trained to do that?