Scientific American article on Computer Chess

[hgm]

Alexander Kronrod, a Russian AI researcher, said ``Chess is the Drosophila of AI.''

He could of course also have meant it is a pest!

[corres]

[quote="whereagles"]

Science today understands how the brain works at micro and macro levels.

[/quote]


I am afraid only some aspects of them are understood in detail.
The recognition of relationship between micro and macro level will be only in the far future.

[mhull]

I think that by definition the human brain cannot fully understand how it works.

This was famously the opinion of kurt Gödel.

If the human brain can understand how it works then if you tell me to choose a number(1 or 2) than I can have an algorithm to calculate exactly if I choose 1 or 2.

There may be an algorithm to calculate it but if I understand the algorithm then I can easily prove that the algorithm can give wrong result by using the following algorithm:
1)calculate the number that I am supposed to choose
2)choose a different number.

The conclusion is that there is no way that I fully understand how my brain works.

Another relevant quote:
Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is more than a machine. --Kurt Gödel

[Jesse Gersenson]

A computer application isn't coming up with radically new concepts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcGYEXJqun8

[Frank Brenner]

+1 !!!

[Frank Brenner]

I fully agree and would like to extend your answer to:

There is no AI in a any of todays written pieces of software more than can be in notepad.exe

[hgm]

I think that by definition the human brain cannot fully understand how it works.

If the human brain can understand how it works then if you tell me to choose a number(1 or 2) than I can have an algorithm to calculate exactly if I choose 1 or 2.

There may be an algorithm to calculate it but if I understand the algorithm then I can easily prove that the algorithm can give wrong result by using the following algorithm:
1)calculate the number that I am supposed to choose
2)choose a different number.

The conclusion is that there is no way that I fully understand how my brain works.

This is wrong. Understanding how something works is not the same as being able to do what it does. I understand perfectly well how a rocket works. That doesn't mean I can fly to the Moon without one.

I can perfectly understand how a computer memory works. Even if the number of bits it can hold is a billion times bigger than the number of synapses in my brain. Or a trillion. The size just doesn't matter. All sizes work the same, and there is nothing extra to understand when it is bigger.

[mclane]

Having a memory is not similar like our brain. The difference is we forget unimportant things and memorize important things.

We learn by forgetting the unimportant.
We do this when we sleep.


Do you remember how it was in your driving lessons ? you were unable to drive as long as you THOUGHT about each step.
Driving a car means to forget about the how.
In the moment it is done automatically, you drive good.

But how is it done ? It is done by forgetting driving.

As long as you have to think what comes next, you drive like an idiot.
A good driver is nearly driving with the backbone.

It is similar with anything you do.

A good chess player does not really need to think each move.
He looks on the chess board and the good moves come automatically to the surface. The main line automatically constructs by watching the chess board.

As long as we let computers generate moves it cannot be AI.
As long as the computer memory is not forgetting , it is not AI.

We have to teach chess programs to forget the unimportant moves and to concentrate in the right moves.

Wrong or right moves are not found by a search tree building a main line.
That is how computers do it.
It it is wrong.

It is not AI. It is kind of brute force although it is highly intelligent.

A good algorithm forgets those unimportant moves.
Until only the few senseful ideas remain,

This is how AI is doing it,


In the past the very selective programs were on that trip not because the programmers were more clever but because the programmers had to fight with the resources, CPU speed, RAM and rom.

Today this is all infinite.

But instead using these infinite resources to create AI the whole development is wasted with Komodo trying to beat stockfish and stockfish trying to beat Komodo.
And they compute millions and millions of moves ! this is not chess.
This is not AI.

This is the way computer "solve" this problem.

But it is not the way humans learn something,
And it is obviously NOT AI.

AI Is about forgetting.

As long as computers do not forget things, they will not produce AI.

[syzygy]

Wrong or right moves are not found by a search tree building a main line.
That is how computers do it.
It it is wrong.

It is not AI. It is kind of brute force although it is highly intelligent.

It is AI, and it is not at all intelligent.

And what you call "forgetting" is in reality "relegating to your subconscious". Letting your neurons do it without your conscious thoughts "understanding" it. Driving a car or letting good moves "well up" in your brain is not done by forgetting but by training your neurons.

[Daniel Shawul]

I think that by definition the human brain cannot fully understand how it works.

If the human brain can understand how it works then if you tell me to choose a number(1 or 2) than I can have an algorithm to calculate exactly if I choose 1 or 2.

Not at all. I can fully understand how a random generator based on atmospheric noise functions without being able to predict its result on any particular run.

Uri seems to be equating fully understanding to being able to predict the outcome of a random number generator. For instance, to explain the atmospheric noise RNGs, we should be able to memorize the state of the atmosphere, solve the navier-stokes etc.. all in our tiny brain. I believe fully understanding should not be reduced to this ridiculous level and that understanding the general mechanism (e.g. "choosing 1 or 2 in 50-50 manner with random noise added to it", should be enough of understanding, atleast for me.