[FOM] AI in Chess/Kasparov
paul at mtnmath.com
Mon Feb 1 13:59:22 EST 2010
Harvey Friedman wrote:
> The above touches on some interesting AI issues.
> Also to ponder:
> amateur human + skilled computer use dominates top human + competent
> computer use.
It suggests that use of computers can lead to different approaches and
different skill sets becoming more important in creative problem
solving. It is part of the reason I think approaches like the ordinal
calculator (www.mtnmath.com/ord) can lead to mathematics that is not
practical with a more conventional approach. We have long had an
example of this with the solution to the four color problem.
> This all seems to suggest that computers and humans have orthogonal
> abilities. I wonder what, if anything, rigorous can be learned from
> the chess experience.
Today's computers have abilities that parallel human abilities but are
vastly more powerful. There are far more human capacities that they
lack, but that may be temporary. Best understood among these abilities
is simple pattern recognition, i. e., making sense out of a visual
scene. It is some form of intuitive pattern recognition that seems to
guide mathematicians in choosing what problems to tackle and how to
approach them. In the chess tournament, high level pattern recognition
by amateurs guided the search of their computers. That, according to the
article, enabled them to beat teams of grand masters with less
skillfully guided computers.
Computers may eventually have the same and then vastly more powerful
pattern recognition capacities than humans. It will take time and more
powerful computers. The futurist and AI expert, Ray Kurzweil has
predicted that we will, in the not too distant future, be able to scan
the living brain in enough detail to reproduce its functionality.
> Consider the following Conjecture in three forms:
> A Human chess player will come along whose ideas are so creatively
> powerful, that
> i. (s)he will consistently beat humans.
> ii. (s)he will consistently beat computers.
> iii. (s)he will consistently beat human + computer.
> I wonder what people think of these Conjectures, and how we may try to
> say something interesting about them rigorously, before the GREAT ONE
Already computers consistently beat all humans and that is only going to
become more decisive. Eventually a computer alone may defeat teams of
humans plus computers because the computer will be able to do whatever
humans do in playing chess only much faster. That is my guess.
The article emphasizes how computers have changed the game of chess
because talented kids start out playing computers. This makes them
better chess players. I suspect the same thing is happening or will
happen in virtually every other scientific field including the
foundations of mathematics.
More information about the FOM