Liminal factor in A.I

>>7811969
>They are certainly capable of reasoning that can consistently beat human opponents.
no

>I am curious at the progress of artificial intelligence
You aren't, or you would be reading journals on it or an introductory book like bishop

>We know that Chess programs can adapt themselves and essentially learn from their mistakes.
Genetic algorithms are especially bad at chess

>What is lacking in A.I?
You can't ask what's lacking if you don't bother checking what's there

File: AI.png (262KB, 697x534px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 697x534px

>>7811969

>>7811972
Not the retarded op . Bishop book ? Elaborate and would that be after norvig . Also what mathematical background would be preferable

>>7811969

>Chess

The advantage of the best modern artificially intelligent chess players over human ones isn't in the ability of the machine to reason, but rather the specialization of its memory and performance. For example, you can have a non-sentient, brute-force chess player that is able to brute-force calculate and traverse all possible outcomes of the game within more steps than a human, having only lots of specialized hardware thrown at it and a simple program that makes use of it.

>human-like AI

We have models that are at least approximately similar to the physiology of the brain (namely, neural networks which communicate through a series of activations); however, what we have is a general idea at best. We know generally what happens our own brains, but not to a degree of detail that it can be directly replicated: most modern AI work (at least in neural networks) comes down to pulling the right activation functions and network structures out of a hat for a specialized task.

I personally do my own independent AI research, and my own analysis isn't that the flaw is necessarily in the various neural models that are out there (some are very good at what they do), but that the largest gap lies in a lack of 'sentient architecture' of moving, learning parts (the models that we have) that are capable of working together to self-supervise and experience in the sense that we do.

Cant an ai just solve chess?

>>7812005
The only reason it isn't solved already is the retardedly high number of branches each match can take.

>We know that Chess programs can adapt themselves and essentially learn from their mistakes.
/SCI/ MODS PLEASE BAN ALL AI THREADS

>>7812012

Why?

>>7811994
not much background, you need calculus, some cs and applied statistics. google bishop book

>>7812015
Every cs field that is even remotely "sci-fi-ey" is considered popscience here.

>>7812029

I speak from experience that AI research is real and applicable to real life.