Posted by on June 24, 2016 7:32 am
Categories: Uncategorized Wanderings

 StupidityKasparov couldn’t believe that he had been beaten by a computer because he felt the play was a sign of superior intelligence. But he was wrong — years later it was revealed by Deep Blue’s co-creator that the triumphant move had been a result of a software bug. When presented with several options, Deep Blue could not make a definitive decision, so made a random move that rattled Kasparov….

Let’s give machines the status of a separate species with a distinctly different type of intellect — one that is superior in data crunching but is devoid of emotional reasoning. Not better, not worse, just different. No more condescension based on animistic beliefs. No more machine worship based on one’s love of technology. Let’s avoid using words like thinking and understanding when talking about machine intelligence; they add nothing to our understanding of their understanding (see what I mean?). We are slowly learning the myriad ways that animals and plants exhibit their own forms of intelligence; the same criteria should apply to machines.

From New York Times

I’ll see your program and raise you mine

One of the fundamental differences between playing chess and two-handed poker is that the chessboard and the pieces on it are visible throughout the entire game, but an opponent’s cards in poker are private. This informational deficit increases the complexity and the uncertainty in calculating the best course of action—to raise, to fold, or to call. Bowling et al. now report that they have developed a computer program that can do just that for the heads-up variant of poker known as Limit Texas Hold ’em (see the Perspective by Sandholm).

Science, this issue p. 145; see also p. 122

But this program does it’s magic through brute force.  What about a program that could read tells?

Filter by
Post Page
Wanderings UpLoadedMe
Sort by
No tags for this post.