> IBM managed to beat Garry Kasperov using symbolic AI did they not? So in what way does it not work?
Ok, I should be clearer. ML approaches are way way better than symbolic approaches. Given almost any problem, it is much much easier to make an ML approach work than any symbolic approach.
Yes, chess was first solved symbolically, but it's since been solved by ML better and more easily, to the point that stockfish now incorporates neural nets [1]. ML has also given extremely high levels of performance on Go, Starcraft, DoTA, and on protein folding, image recognition, text processing, speech recognition, and pretty much everything else.
I would challenge you to name any (non-simple) problem where traditional AI methods are still state of the art.
[1] https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2020/stockfish-12/
Ok, I should be clearer. ML approaches are way way better than symbolic approaches. Given almost any problem, it is much much easier to make an ML approach work than any symbolic approach.
Yes, chess was first solved symbolically, but it's since been solved by ML better and more easily, to the point that stockfish now incorporates neural nets [1]. ML has also given extremely high levels of performance on Go, Starcraft, DoTA, and on protein folding, image recognition, text processing, speech recognition, and pretty much everything else.
I would challenge you to name any (non-simple) problem where traditional AI methods are still state of the art.
[1] https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2020/stockfish-12/