jasisz

6 ms·

1.
by jasisz 6mo ago
Tooling tax is a real argument. But “just use macros + linting” usually gives you policy-flavored Rust, not a genuinely different language model. That works if enforcement is the goal; it works much less well if the artifact itself is meant
2.
by jasisz 6mo ago
Author here. Aver is an experimental statically typed language for AI-written, human-reviewed code. What’s different is that intent (`?`), explicit effects (`!`), design decisions (`decision`), and behavior checks (`verify`) are part of the
3.
Show HN: Aver – a language designed for AI to write and humans to review(github.com)
7 points by jasisz 6mo ago|4 comments
4.
by jasisz 11y ago
From the "An analysis of UCT in multi-player games", Nathan Sturtevant, 2008: "Multi-player UCT is nearly identical to regular UCT. At the highest level of the algorithm, the tree is repeatedly sampled until it is time to mak
5.
by jasisz 11y ago
In your example script yes, but basic UCT does not do that - simply because UCT was not meant only for multi-player games in the beginning. And this is some assumption we make about our opponents (actually that they want to maximize their p
6.
by jasisz 11y ago
This is exactly the problem I've written about - AFAIK basic UCT algorithm does not model your opponent in the selection phase (only in simulation when some heavier than random logic is applied).
7.
by jasisz 11y ago
But this requires storing and back propagating this info for the other players - something I really haven't seen in any examples (nor in this article). We cannot also assume that game is always zero-sum game and this information is not
8.
by jasisz 11y ago
This algorithm (in it's regular form used often in games and examples) has one interesting "downside" I was exploring some time ago - selection is performed using the UCB formula. So basically it tries to maximize the player