You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

skeptical_lurker comments on After Go, what games should be next for DeepMind? - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: InquilineKea 10 March 2016 08:49PM

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

Comments (73)

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

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 11 March 2016 08:45:14AM *  2 points [-]

Zealots/muta/dragoons/Hydralisks is just a standard rock/paper/scissors game theory thing, and it shouldn't be too hard to calculate an approximate nash equlibrium. The problem is that there is micro, macro, game theory, imperfect information, and an AI has to tie all these different aspects together (as well as perhaps some perceptual chunking to reduce the complexity) so its a real challange for combining different cognitive modules. This is too close to AGI for comfort IMO.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 11 March 2016 07:20:42PM 5 points [-]

This is too close to AGI for comfort IMO.

Pretty sure it's still comfortably narrow AI. People used to think that chess required AGI-levels of intelligence, too.