Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bgwalter 380 days ago
This was the Centaur hypothesis in the early days of chess programs and it hasn't been true for a long time.

Chess programs of course have a well defined algorithm. "AI" would be incapable of even writing /bin/true without having seen it before.

It certainly wouldn't have been able to write Redis.
1 comments
NitpickLawyer 380 days ago
> This was the Centaur hypothesis in the early days of chess programs and it hasn't been true for a long time.

> Chess programs of course have a well defined algorithm.

Ironically, that also "hasn't been true for a long time". The best chess engines humans have written with "defined algorithms" were bested by RL (alphazero) engines a long time ago. The best of the best are now NNUE + algos (latest stockfish). And even then NN based engines (Leela0) can occasionally take some games from Stockfish. NNs are scarily good. And the bitter lesson is bitter for a reason.

link
bgwalter 380 days ago
No, the alphazero papers used an outdated version of Stockfish for comparison and have always been disputed.

Stockfish NNUE was announced to be 80 ELO higher than the default. I don't find it frustrating. NNs excel at detecting patterns in a well defined search space.

Writing evaluation functions is tedious. It isn't a sign of NN intelligence.

link