Does Stockfish Dream of Electric Knights?

An impressive amount of interesting information. I ignored the most you speak about. I remember when I studied in 80's that neural nets was in their beginning but it was not my field.
Congratulations. It will take time for me to make a calm read.
Speak about consciousness of AI is endless.

Amusing the paraphase of Philip K. Dick. It is a good lure.

Now for "Does Stockfish Dream Of Electric Horseys?".

I just love the horsey in the blog picture lol Great blog ruy!

This is really cool, thank you for this post!

One GOFAI history note: Melanie Mitchell should also be credited for Copycat alongside Douglas Hofstadter (the work was a joint effort).

Fantastic work on this!

@katieag said ^

One GOFAI history note: Melanie Mitchell should also be credited for Copycat alongside Douglas Hofstadter (the work was a joint effort).

Thanks for the tip! I edited the blog to reflect this.

I enjoyed this blog post a lot and also the other posts that I read from you in the past! It's very interesting to see how you apply theories from cognitive science to chess.

A thought that I had and that might be in some form helpful (but perhaps also not? unsure if I should post it):

I feel like you have a rather "computationalist" understanding of cognition (also from your other blog posts). I think it could be helpful if you also include some thoughts from 4E or situated approaches to cognition. While I love what you write, I sometimes feel like you make comparisons between algorithms and humans that philosophically just aren't applicable because the domains that are being compared are so different. I believe its important to keep in mind that human chess players are always bodily beings in-the-world, where there chess game cannot be reduced to what happens in their brain. My current bodily health, the chair I'm sitting on, the piece set that is being used, who my opponent is and what history we have, the fight I had with my boss yesterday, the way how society regards chess, these are all things that influence how I play.

Please keep on writing and I'm looking forward to your next post :)

@Kretschy198 said ^

I enjoyed this blog post a lot and also the other posts that I read from you in the past! It's very interesting to see how you apply theories from cognitive science to chess.

Thank you!

A thought that I had and that might be in some form helpful (but perhaps also not? unsure if I should post it):

It's a helpful thought.

I feel like you have a rather "computationalist" understanding of cognition (also from your other blog posts). I think it could be helpful if you also include some thoughts from 4E or situated approaches to cognition.

That's a good point. I am thinking about embodied cognition. I haven't integrated it yet as I am still working it out in my mind.

While I love what you write, I sometimes feel like you make comparisons between algorithms and humans that philosophically just aren't applicable because the domains that are being compared are so different.

I believe its important to keep in mind that human chess players are always bodily beings in-the-world, where there chess game cannot be reduced to what happens in their brain. My current bodily health, the chair I'm sitting on, the piece set that is being used, who my opponent is and what history we have, the fight I had with my boss yesterday, the way how society regards chess, these are all things that influence how I play.

Instructive point. Thank you for raising this, I will think about it.

Please keep on writing and I'm looking forward to your next post :)

Glad you like my writing :)

This is a very complicated topic, and you did a good job connecting chess problem solving with the (for now unanswerable) questions of what makes a conscious mind.

I've spent many happy hours reading Daniel Dennett (RIP) over the years, but I generally give up after a while, exasperated by the problems of defining the terms.

One of the more instructive frameworks I ever came across was the question of what the continuum of consciousness organisms might be: arranging items from a rock (clearly not conscious) to a virus (probably not) to a bat (probably?) to people with certain brain damages (impaired consciousness) to me, UncleVinny (I assure you I'm conscious!), we can shed some of the twinkle-toes insistence that something spooky and non-physical is going on. Non-physicalists like Chalmers will argue, of course, but at least the conversation is rooted in something tangible.

In any case, it's always fun to think about, and I enjoyed reading your essay. Thanks!

@RuyLopez1000 I also have no idea what this means but great job! (P.S) This is one of the best blogs I have ever seen on Lichess!

How many likes can this comment get