AI BTFO

AI BTFO

>Does quantum theory explain human consciousness? New institute to probe one of life's greatest mysteries
>Scientists have created a chess puzzle to prove AI is no match for humans
>They say the human brain exhibits quantum effects that lead to consciousness
>This means it doesn't follow the rules for the classical properties of matter
>People are being asked to find a way for white to either win or get a stalemate
>AI robots always fail the puzzle because they assume that black will win

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4311932/Can-solve-chess-puzzle-no-AI-crack.html

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FTDeOPFr9e4
forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/05/04/why-your-brain-isnt-a-computer/#6f915d6c13e1
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Interdasting

King to c6 or whatever that square is

That might be the most idiotic thing I've ever read.

How did the black pawns end up on the back row?

The computer is probaby just saying fuck this retarded shit,you humans are morons.

Thats the side not the back

>Three (?) black bishops on black tiles

>it is a legal position
Nice coordinates faggot! Are we just to assume the black king is on h3 or a6 or whatever. Nice Pajeet.

pawns can become bishops

This is bullshit. I just tried it with free stockfish, and it correctly draws with white.

I really dont understand the reverence that consciousness gets

>black king

lol

it's something that isn't fully understood. scientists and curious people are fascinated by things we don't yet comprehend.

I can't even make out what pieces those scribbles are trying to represent. Why did they post a drawn picture instead of creating the position with Lichess board editor?

It's the soul

but it's often described as some mythical thing, can't it just be the brain simulating your perceived environment (including yourself)

That still doest explain why you are actually aware of what is happening

Randomness isn't free will. Determinism isn't free will. Consciousness is an illusion.

>We programmed this thing to do this thing and when it does it, it proves that our brains are even better than we thought great job everyone

Consciousness and free will are two completely different things

>brain forms a spacial simulation based on perception of physical area
>forms a simulation of self based on perception of place in social hierarchy etc
so I think the sensation of being aware is just a combination of these two simulations and "reflecting" on your status within them. If that makes any sense.

>white (brown)

what did he mean by that?

>Does quantum theory explain human consciousness?
I've heard of Penrose many years ago.

Many people including quantum physicists do not believe that the "strange" aspects of quantum physics explain human consciousness because the probabalistic effects of quantum mechanics are swamped out at room temperature and the macro scale of human brains involved.

On the other hand, quantum mechanics "explains" everything since it deals with subatomic particles and photons, the quanta of matter and electromagnetic energy. It's a "tails I win, heads you lose" argument. I guess I'd have to read his theories to really understand what the hell Penrose actually thinks. Suffice to say there is a lot of opposition to the quantum mind theories.

A wildly contrived chess puzzle doesn't prove a fucking thing about AI or human brains. What is the likelihood of the a chess game to play out from the beginning and end up exactly like their board in the first place? Fucking near zero.

Of course this is a second-hand reporting from the media and the media ALWAYS misrepresent what scientists and thinkers say because journalists are idiots.

Why would physics cause you to aware?
It should just happen.

>white (brown)

I'm saying you aren't actually "aware" you are just processing data from your stimuli and underlying processes to generate a simulation of your "self"

>white (brown) can draw
>white (brown) can even win if it forces black into an error (?) (how else should anyone ever win in chess?)
>shitty drawing looks like it is made by some 12 year old
>dailymail
>it IS a legal position (of course it is. all positions in compliance with the rules are legal. doesn't matter whether they can arise through ordinary gameplay or not.)
>"The computer gets confused because there are so many possible positions that it would take more than all of the computational power on Earth to calculate a move"

GTFO with this ruse. Fuck. This is enraging. I'm mad now.

>I'm saying you aren't actually "aware"
But thats not true I am aware
Why am I able to observe this physical stimulation?

Why the fuck would this crash a computer?
Its a fucking normal chessboard with a situation that could happen in a normal game, Ive never heard of engines failing like that.

lel

by that logic a camera is aware isn't it?

No because the camera never sees anything
it just physically reacts to light

There are a few things we should clear

First of all, the modern "AI" is not and AI. It's not even 1% close to what an AI is supposed to be, it's literally a powerful statistical machine - that's it. Stop calling them AIs
Second, the supposed problem in that article is absolutely trash and shows how a computer programmed without it in mind shits itself. A few lines of code added and this guy's retarded problem disappears. Again, that is the problem with the current """"AIs"""" as opposed to an evolutionary AI that generated its own code - they aren't an AI but a programmed statistical machine

how do you know you see anything? inb4 because im aware of it

>quantum consciousness

even if this ends up true and becomes accepted science, I will always think it's stupid.

You can still simulate all the quantum mechanics on a classical computer. So even if that unproved and untested shit is true it doesn't mean shit about AI not being able to have consciousness. And that's saying nothing about AI running on hardware exploiting quantum mechanics.

You are no different from a homeopath trying to use science buzzwords he doesn't understand to explain his bullshit

Well the only thing I actually know is aware is me

Wait a second.

Is the "solution" actually that the white king just moves along the white squares and the black bishops of course are only allowed to move along the black squares, so it is a draw because this can go until forever with no one ever winning.

And if black is actually so stupid to move the bishops out of their original diagonal, so that white can move its pawn on c6 to c7 and then to c8 to promote it to queen (or alternatively bishop) to checkmate black?

What. The. Fuck. You just HAVE to be fucking kidding me. Whoever came up with this garbage should be fired immediately. I really hope this is just a shitty ruse to rustle some jimmies.

>You can still simulate all the quantum mechanics on a classical computer.

>Not knowing what I'm talking about

The post.

You think you are aware. You exhibit the properties of a person, of course, but you have to understand that all of the underlying processes that go into your consciousness are purely natural. That is, your consciousness and interpretation of reality are all based upon the biology it is built upon, and can be altered or destroyed by many given forces. All of us are familiar with something as simple but brutal as a bullet, which will irrevocably destroy your consciousness, but I don't think that gets the point across. How about some drug that would inhibit the production of serotonin? How about an electromagnet attached to the section of your brain dealing with spatial awareness?

YOU, that being the person you interpret as yourself, are the sum total of processes working in tandem. It is still nothing more than a purely natural force. The only difference between you and a rock tumbling down a hill is the amount of complexity involved, if you boil it down to the nitty gritty.

sure but the whole thing is idiotic, onli a human retard piece of shit would pic 2 bishops instead of two queens

thanks for your leaf-enhanced analysis

Isn't that just because the chess AI wasn't programmed with any sort of priority system in case of a situation where there are too many variables to reasonable compute? Is that the only difference between being conscious and unconscious?

But that still does not explain why I sense things
If the mind was just pure physics it should just happen
I dont need to be aware of it

>>Does quantum theory explain human consciousness?
"No"

Tell me mo

Show me a single phenomena not possible to simulate with classical computer.

I will booze free will

you are assuming that, your act of thought/being aware is not necessarily more unique than a rabbit thinking about jumping. You may just have an extra layer of perception from evolving in a social hierarchy.

I think the special property of consciousness is being aware that those things are simulations, the whole thoughts thinking thoughts thing.

It's a higher-order perception.

You sense things because of natural selection. You use your senses to interpret and move throughout your environment. Things DO just happen with the mind. People can be administered drugs that will directly inhibit or alter the ways in which they sense things. It happens every day.

Your awareness isn't some light that has turned on by the flick of a switch. It's a furnace, which is stoked by the other processes that go into your higher cognitive functions. Have you never witnessed a man that has so totally degenerated that he seems to be nothing more than a robotic shell? If you damage or remove areas of the brain that govern different parts of your self, your sense of consciousness will suffer.

>extra layer of perception
But that the thing
I have no other consciousness to compare mine too

...

This seems like bullshit. This is just pointing out that we do not have real AI. We call it AI but in the end its just a big database of how to respond to a given input.

This example is just a chess position rare and fucked up enough that it is outside of the AIs domain of inputs it has a range of outputs for.

I dont see how this has anything to do with quantum effects. I see the fact that humans have a much more general understanding of the world and can at least attempt to respond to situations that are new.

HEIL
→
→
→ → →
→ → →


>
>
>
>>WE HAVE HOLY RIGHT TO DEFEND CHRISTIAN LANDS
>
>
>
>>>SEEK THE GOSPEL OF PHILIP
>>>KNOW THE FIRE OF GNOSIS AND THE SONG OF SYNCHRONICITY THAT THE (((PHARISEE))) HAVE TAKEN FROM YOU.
>>>OBEY = OY VEY
>>>SHEKKELS=SHACKLES
>>>SATURN=/=JUPITER
>>>THE MORNING STAR IS NOT THE EVENING STAR
>>>HOLOCAUST = HOLOGRAM CAST= HOLOGRAPHIC GRAMMATON SPELL= FAKE GOD.
>>>SHATTER THE DEMIURG!
>>>KNOW THE SAYINGS OF CHRIST THAT PUT HIM TO LANCE
>>>TAKE THE NAZIRITE OATH AS CHRIST SAMSON AND HITLER BEFORE YOU AND WE CAN SAVE THE WEST
>>>WE MUST CONQUER THE TALMUD WITH FIRE OF CHRIST AND SET THIS WORLD FREE

we must defend ourselves with a spiral, as kamina did. KAMINA LIVES!

computers do not need to be aware to physically process data
>your sense of consciousness will suffer.
How do you know?

Pride and bias.

Aren't they supposed to be promoted at that point.

GOD IS MATH, THE DIVISION OF ALL INFINITES

>Rule based AI is not an AI, just a programmed statistical machine.

HOLY SHIT I JUST TRIED IT, LOOKS LIKE IT CHECKS OUT

Please don't make me read this through the daily mail

No shit

White to play forces a draw by not moving his pawns. Nothing to do with opponent being AI

That's correct, it isn't. The environment (Universe) is supposed to set the rules and have the AI evolve around it, like we did. A human-based rule will always be inefficient because it's abstracting too far away from what the "actual" rules of the Universe are

This is fake news

ATHEISTS BTFO

since when do we assume in the affirmative? if we had a computer programmed to simulate one of us identically ie neurotransmitters memory etc. Would you think it was just as conscious when it tells you it is?

>the whole thoughts thinking thoughts thing

'Thinking about thoughts/thinking' or 'thoughts about thinking/thoughts' might be a better way of putting it. Metacognition, in other words.

Has to be. No computer program can be beaten by a human now. No matter what position is on the board.
/thread

>First of all, the modern "AI" is not and AI.
Yes, machine learning is blown out of proportion. Hyped machines like Watson are literally dumber than a box of rocks at common sense reasoning, as they work on Bayesian probabilities and shit. A.I. used to be much more ambitious, with madmen like Minsky and McCarthy toward fundamental work in everything from logic to machine psychology.

Great things like LISP and computer time sharing were created along the way.

Is there a version of the OP's pic that isn't a retarded child's crayon drawing?

No
Why would we?

I think the POINT is that, given a scenario so arbitrary that it has never been seen before and never will be again, the human brain can still come up with a novel solution while an AI brain relies on pre-programmed behaviours that can't possibly account for every scenario.

In this case the novel solution is "block every black piece from moving and keep my king on the white squares so the bishops can't check it" which is pretty easy for a person to come up with but much harder for a modern AI. This doesn't say jack shit about real AI, but until one is invented it's the best we got

the problem I have with it (aside from consciousness being murkily defined at best) is that it is an assumption that you are aware in a unique way that is unexplainable whereas I would say it's merely your brain spitting out data based on it's functions
I would say it is just as conscious as a person.

OP is a faggot
Here

Whites go first, not that matters anyway, white can force a draw

The whole problem is about AI faceplanting on its horizon and lacking intuition assumes that blacks win

Nothing new, chess AIs never solved chess anyway

I think the point is that engines evaluate it as "winning" for black. Of course every engine can play the endgame to a draw through the 50 move rule.

It's still a retarded argument and anyone who has messed around with an engine already knows that you can get large evaluations in drawn positions. Engines are not meant to analyze positions they're meant to play chess.

most horrible looking chess puzzle i've seen

do computers just see how horrible the drawing is and give up?

>stockfish draws with white
>evaluates black win

???

>I would say it's merely your brain spitting out data based on it's functions

In some sense it is. But it is unique from a computer program that follows a set algorithm that it cannot deviate from. If the computer were able to tweak this optimization algorithm based on the circumstances, that is, by some meta optimization program built into it, then this might be closer with our own way of thinking.

But it still wouldn't be what we consider consciousness. Why? Because it isn't clear what the "algorithms" in our own minds do. Do they optimize survival? Not always, no.

The computer cant solve it because to calculate all possible moves for a 50 move rule draw is impossible on terms of computing power
If you play it out (so basically giving it feedback and cutting down its branching) of course it will draw it

Well, it does. It favors black tremendously at the start thanks to all that material and because it can't see further than 10 moves ahead. If you dick around on the light squares for 40 moves and then evaluate again, it will see the draw. I guess it does prove the point that chess engines don't actually "understand" chess, but nobody argues that they do anyway.

>AI robots always fail the puzzle because they assume that black will win

AI robots getting BLEACHED

Are there successful chess robots with no libraries?

"Always bet on black"
youtube.com/watch?v=FTDeOPFr9e4

that differentiation seems arbitrary, assuming you can translate the physics of the mind to a mathematical function you can produce it in a computer identically.

you know you have created a retarded experiment when black has promoted to 2 bishops

The reason I don't think it's arbitrary is because it isn't clear if the human mind is following what he think of as a computer program at all, even an infinitely complex one.

>assuming you can translate the physics of the mind to a mathematical function you can produce it in a computer identically.
It also isn't clear if everything can be reproduced mathematically. Certain mathematical paradoxes make me doubt this. Math itself has limitations.

Blacks BTFO

>a retarded experiment
Its more of a demonstration really
I believe extra bishops are there just to fuck up the branching

that doesn't make sense, even if the brain has randomization you could simulate it in a computer program. What couldn't you simulate?

WE WUZ CHESS PIECES

Successful as in capable of crushing you and me in the middlegame without ever even getting to the point when it needs a tablebase? I bet all the famous ones are.

What mathematical paradoxes do you have in mind?

There are situations where promoting a pawn to queen would cause a stalemate, but they're extremely rare.

Well humans aren't solving it based on calculating a 50 rule move draw either.

So we say the AI fails because it can't draw based on calculating 50 moves ahead, but we say humans don't fail despite not being able to do that either.

All this shows is that if you add enough pieces on the board, traditional chess AIs get fucked over because traditional chess AIs simply bruteforce endgame positions and there is not enough computational power to bruteforce the given position up to 50 moves.

All this shows is that you can beat chess AIs by swamping its computational power, but that was already known, it is why we haven't solved chess. I really am not seeing the point of any of this.

>I really dont understand the reverence that consciousness gets

a leaf wouldn't

As I said, not everything may be able to expressed mathematically.

>But looking at the workings of the brain in more detail reveal some more fundamental flaws with computational theory. For one thing, the brain itself isn't structured like a Turing machine. It's a parallel processing network of neural nodes - but not just any network. It's a plastic neural network that can in some ways be actively changed through influences by will or environment.
>You don't have to delve into the technical details too much to see this in your life. Just consider the prevalence of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. Cognitive dissonance is the ability of the mind to believe what it wants even in the face of opposing evidence. Confirmation bias is the ability of the mind to seek out evidence that conforms to its own theories and simply gloss over or completely ignore contradictory evidence. Neither of these aspects of the brain are easily explained through computation - it might not even be possible to express these states mathematically.

>What's more, the brain simply can't be divided into functional pieces.
>If the parts of the brain we think of as being fundamentally human - not just intelligence, but self-awareness - are emergent properties of the brain, rather than functional ones, as seems likely,
the computational theory of mind gets even weaker.

forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/05/04/why-your-brain-isnt-a-computer/#6f915d6c13e1

>I really am not seeing the point of any of this.
The point is exactly what you said
You didnt calculate moves, but you almost instantly new the answer
How? What was your thought process etc.

I don't understand why we need to "explain" human consciousness. It is a pragmatic truth, we choose to believe in it because the belief benefits us. When you bring physics into it, there is nothing that would suggest we are conscious.

>tfw a 56% untermensch disparages your glorious german/austrian self just because you live in leafland.

>may
in the words of the immortal intellectual Shania Twain 'that don't impress me much'. As a programmer I don't see why those would not be doable.

>in the words of the immortal intellectual Shania Twain 'that don't impress me much'. As a programmer I don't see why those would not be doable.

"May" as in we don't know for sure one way or the other. Read the whole article though, it seems highly unlikely that our brains are like programmable Turing machines.

>The mind is best understood, not as software, but rather as an emergent property of the physical brain. So building an artificial intelligence with the same level of complexity as that of a human intelligence isn't a matter of just finding the right algorithms and putting it together. The brain is much more complicated than that, and is very likely simply not amenable to that kind of mathematical reductionism, any more than economic systems are.