[ExI] alpha zero

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 8 December 2017 at 11:32, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 5:30 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ​
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Dylan Distasio <interzone at gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>>
> > ​
>>  Deep learning neural nets appear to bear little resemblance to how
>> biological nervous systems actually work.
>>
>> ​As far as Chess​
>>
>> ​Go and Shogi are concerned it works far better than ​
>> biological nervous systems
>> ​.​
>>
>>
>
> Yes, in simple, well-defined domains. Computers are incredibly fast at
> math but that doesn't mean they're math geniuses. I can't do billions of
> floating point operations per second, but I can explain to a child in terms
> it will understand what "addition" means. A CPU has no understanding of
> what it does. Likewise, AlphaGO has no understanding of the games it plays.
> It can't explain its strategy--it has none, it just "knows" what usually
> works--and that's excessively anthropomorphic, it knows nothing: it just
> does what it was programmed to do.
>
> It a clever and useful technique but it's a far cry from a general
> intelligence that can interact directly with the world where the rules
> aren't all known, and communicate with other intelligent entities, evaluate
> novel situations, and solve complex problems.
>

My neurons just do what they're programmed to do, following the rigid rules
of physics. I seem to know things, but I don't really "know" how I know
them. I can explain things to others, but I don't really "know" how I can
explain them, or how my brain leads me to "understand". Perhaps I just
"know" and "understand" things in a mechanistic way.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20171208/63c12add/attachment.html>