Lisp developer walks away with Google AI contest • Hacker News Board

Re: Lisp developer walks away with Google AI contest

#71

Post by aplusbi » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 7:44 PM UTC

krmboya wrote: post #51

Zak wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the mix of languages found in the top 100 interesting. Smart is obviously a big factor in determining the winners. Speed was a factor in the contest as well, with a 1 second per move time limit. Based on that, I'd expect to see the faster of what Paul Graham calls "languages for smart people" near the top. Lisp, Haskell, ML and Lua come to mind. That didn't happen. What follows are observations about things I…

'Speed wasn't that important: Python made up 20% of the top 100.' In the article, speedy execution can be taken to mean the speed/ease with which you translate you idea into code and not the speed at which the resulting code runs

I don't know about this challenge, but during the Tron AI challenge, execution speed was very important. There was a time limit for how long your AI could take to make a move so the faster your execution the deeper your min-max tree.

Re: Lisp developer walks away with Google AI contest

#72

Post by aerique » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 7:45 PM UTC

trezor wrote: post #40

Very interesting stuff. Is the source for the various bots posted anywhere? Is it even a requirement that you disclose your source or that it will be made public after the results are published? I looked around but couldn't find any obvious place to find the source for the bots used.

There's a thread on the competition's forums: http://ai-contest.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1168

Re: Lisp developer walks away with Google AI contest

#73

Post by dkarl » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 8:24 PM UTC

Zak wrote: post #43

pietrofmaggi wrote: post #32

Lisp was clearly a fine tool for this kind of challenge, but the programmer was, as usual, the important piece of the solution. Otherwise I'll expect to have some other of the 33 lisp based entries in the top spot (the second lisp entry is ranked at the #280 spot: http://ai-contest.com/language_profile.php?lang=Lisp ). What about the top ten solutions? http://ai-contest.com/rankings.php 4 Java 3 C++ 2 C# 1 Lisp So is…

I find the mix of languages found in the top 100 interesting. Smart is obviously a big factor in determining the winners. Speed was a factor in the contest as well, with a 1 second per move time limit. Based on that, I'd expect to see the faster of what Paul Graham calls "languages for smart people" near the top. Lisp, Haskell, ML and Lua come to mind. That didn't happen. What follows are observations about things I…

Speed wasn't that important: Python made up 20% of the top 100.

I wonder if the Python programmers recoded their bottlenecks in C or C++. Would the rules of the contest allow that?

Re: Lisp developer walks away with Google AI contest

#74

Post by natep » Thu, Dec 02, 2010, 10:06 PM UTC

natep wrote: post #62

foljs wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, essentially: a) given that people has made bad arguments before b) it "seems relevant" to make bad arguments in the opposite direction now Huh?

I think it's worth pointing out that not only is the argument logically incorrect, it's based on incorrect facts. For example: A: "Lisp sucks. If it didn't, we'd see it winning contests or something" B: "But it has been used to win a contest. Besides, you're really bad at making an argument"

Wait, what? My original comment got at least one upvote, and then my edit ("For example:..."), that was meant to clarify what I was saying, is getting downvotes. Can someone explain?

I'm not trying to disagree with the OP in general (you can't fight bad logic with more bad logic) but just pointing out that correcting someone's facts can be easier (and with this datum point, possible).

Edit: I like the upvote, but an explanation would be better.

Re: Lisp developer walks away with Google AI contest

#75

Post by aufreak3 » Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 1:17 AM UTC

aufreak3 wrote: post #7

Hmm .. maybe I should consider settling in Hungary.

Actually I intended my comment to be taken in two ways -

a. really in appreciation of Hungary for all of its contributions to mathematics and the mathematical sciences.

b. I wished to hint that if the author wanted, the same article could've been about Hungary instead of lisp. Instead of asking "what makes lisp so great at this kind of stuff?" the question could've been "what makes Hungary so great at this kind of stuff?", with a badge saying "Made in Hungary". We always focus on the things we want to focus on as causes don't we?