ScottMessick comments on Superintelligence Reading Group - Section 1: Past Developments and Present Capabilities - Less Wrong

25 Post author: KatjaGrace 16 September 2014 01:00AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (232)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ScottMessick 17 September 2014 11:55:14PM 3 points [-]

I was disappointed to see my new favorite "pure" game Arimaa missing from Bostrom's list. Arimaa was designed to be intuitive for humans but difficult for computers, making it a good test case. Indeed, I find it to be very fun, and computers do not seem to be able to play it very well. In particular, computers are nowhere close to beating top humans despite the fact that there has arguably been even more effort to make good computer players than good human players.

Arimaa's branching factor dwarfs that of Go (which in turn beats every other commonly known example). Since a super-high branching factor is also a characteristic feature of general AI test problems, I think it remains plausible that simple, precisely defined games like Arimaa are good test cases for AI, as long as the branching factor keeps the game out of reach of brute force search.

Comment author: Houshalter 07 June 2015 12:08:02PM *  0 points [-]

In particular, computers are nowhere close to beating top humans despite the fact that there has arguably been even more effort to make good computer players than good human players.

Reportedly this just happened recently: http://games.slashdot.org/story/15/04/19/2332209/computer-beats-humans-at-arimaa

Arimaa's branching factor dwarfs that of Go (which in turn beats every other commonly known example).

Go is super close to being beaten, and AIs do very well against all but the best humans.