Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8994 total)
57 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, Juvenissun, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 52 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,249 Year: 10,997/23,288 Month: 249/1,763 Week: 216/390 Day: 36/69 Hour: 7/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Generating information in a neural network playing chess
Stile
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 31 of 33 (873612)
03-17-2020 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by WookieeB
03-17-2020 3:36 PM


WookieeB writes:

The second part is just crap. "Program" and "Algorithm" are pretty much synonymous. If you want to quibble about the definitions, then an "algorithm" is the set of rules to be followed in calculations, and that at the least would be in the program given to a computer. So to say that the algorithm is unknown is foolish. Even if there are iterations and variables allowed in the program that can change what is considered the "algorithm", it is all still within the bounds of the program and is KNOWN by the designers.

You can use whatever language you want, it doesn't matter.

The result, and the facts, are the same.

With brute-force ("normal") programming - the entire program/algorithm is written/known by the programmers and nothing is ever taught to the programmers except for the answer itself.
It is always known that the answer is "possible" - it's just not known what the answer actually is.

With iterative-based learning ("AI") programming - the program/algorithm is capable of creating additional/new/more algorithms, and it's possible that these can be taught to the human programmers who were not aware they were possible until the AI did it and showed them.
It is not always known if the answer is possible or not - sometimes the AI can teach the programmers that the answer is possible.
It is not always known what the created algorithms will be - sometimes the AI can teach algorithms to the programmers, and sometimes the algorithms used by the program are unteachable to the programmers - (the programmers can't figure them out) - and the solution still works.

Proven by the chess AI - that can beat the best "normal" program (which has beaten the best human players.)
Proven by the oscillator-building-AI - that can create an oscillator using an algorithm that is still not understood by the programmers.
Proven by any other AI doing amazing things - such is the power of "creating algorithms."

You can't make this go away.

Edited by Stile, : Just spelling stuffs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by WookieeB, posted 03-17-2020 3:36 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by WookieeB, posted 03-25-2020 6:46 PM Stile has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 01-18-2019


(1)
Message 32 of 33 (874143)
03-25-2020 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Stile
03-17-2020 3:54 PM


The result, and the facts, are the same.

I suppose it would for you, since you are making up your own facts.

With iterative-based learning ("AI") programming - the program/algorithm is capable of creating additional/new/more algorithms, and it's possible that these can be taught to the human programmers who were not aware they were possible until the AI did it and showed them.

Except that is not what happened with either the chess program or the oscillator program.
For the chess app, there is no report that anyone was surprised at what the program did. It accomplished exactly what it was programmed to do, and the programmers know what process (algorithm) was going on with it. The results may have been a surprise to some, but coming up with different results than any other program was the point of the exercise.

For the oscillator app, again, the developers didnt express any surprise at the process. The expressed surprise at some of the results, including the 'radio' version, but how the algorithm settled on that solution is understood.

Name me any algorithm that any program has developed on its own that is not understood by the programmers!

It is not always known what the created algorithms will be - sometimes the AI can teach algorithms to the programmers, and sometimes the algorithms used by the program are unteachable to the programmers - (the programmers can't figure them out) - and the solution still works.

Basically the same statement as above, but please!!!, where has an algorithm been unteachable to the programmers? Never happened.

Proven by the chess AI - that can beat the best "normal" program (which has beaten the best human players.)

With your definitions, where are you getting that it beat a "normal" program? The chess apps that AlphaZero beat were also considered chess AI programs. Your equivocating on your definitions.

Proven by the oscillator-building-AI - that can create an oscillator using an algorithm that is still not understood by the programmers.

Sorry dude. The programmers know perfectly well the algorithm. You should look up their paper. If your going off of the newscientist.com article, you should reconsider it. They routinely embellish the information.

Proven by any other AI doing amazing things - such is the power of "creating algorithms."

Like?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Stile, posted 03-17-2020 3:54 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 03-26-2020 12:54 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 33 of 33 (874200)
03-26-2020 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by WookieeB
03-25-2020 6:46 PM


Have fun!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by WookieeB, posted 03-25-2020 6:46 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020