Write a chess program that provably makes only legal moves, iterate as desired to improve it. Or,
Write a chess program. Put it in a sandbox so you only ever see it’s moves. Maybe they’re all legal, or maybe they’re not because you’re having it learn the rules with a big neural net or something. At the end of the round of games, the sandbox clears all the memory that held the chess program except for a list of moves in many games. You keep the source. Anything it learned is gone. Iterate as desired to improve it.
If you’re confident you could work out how it was thinking from the source and move list, what if you only got a sequence of wins and non-wins? (An array of bits)
A sequence of wins and non-wins is enough to tell you whether a given approach can result in intelligent behaviour. That alone is enough to make it a useful experiment.
No it’s not. Look at two simpler cases:
Write a chess program that provably makes only legal moves, iterate as desired to improve it. Or,
Write a chess program. Put it in a sandbox so you only ever see it’s moves. Maybe they’re all legal, or maybe they’re not because you’re having it learn the rules with a big neural net or something. At the end of the round of games, the sandbox clears all the memory that held the chess program except for a list of moves in many games. You keep the source. Anything it learned is gone. Iterate as desired to improve it.
If you’re confident you could work out how it was thinking from the source and move list, what if you only got a sequence of wins and non-wins? (An array of bits)
A sequence of wins and non-wins is enough to tell you whether a given approach can result in intelligent behaviour. That alone is enough to make it a useful experiment.