Life In 19x19

Mike Novack wrote:We might want to compare an AI able to run on a computer limited to about 20-30 watts. That would make it fair.

Say, an embedded Arm SoC with a 2x Google Coral module?

lightvector wrote:For example, consider even "merely" an odds of 1 in a million.

Pratchett proved, back in '89, that those succeed 9 out of 10 times. We have a chance!

Take care

I think you should not think intelligence as something mystical, it is just a substance at all. The space and the time are substance too. They can be compressible, transformable, evaporated, cut like apples or water.

Back to the question, can AI be beaten? Absolutely NOT. No one will play a race game with a car, a rocket, a sound and a light.

Can it be beaten?

Sure it can. AI's lose against each other, so they're not perfect.
Just someone has to consistently play the best move every time for a whole game's duration.

How probable is it?
Not very.
It's like the thing with the monkey and the typewriter. Theoretically, if you have a monkey type random keys for an infinite amount of time, it will at some point type all the works of Shakespeare.
However infinity is a long time. Veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery long.
So realistically - will not happen.

Also I don't get why we should view AI as opponent, it's not a fair comparison. If you wanna catch up in that way you'll have to do some crazy genetic engineering and change our species.
Otherwise just see it as a teacher and a standard to measure ourselves against.

golem7 wrote:Also I don't get why we should view AI as opponent, it's not a fair comparison.

I find it revealing (not sure exactly of WHAT, but revealing) that we get so fixated on this. We've been had machines able to beat humans at their own game for decades, but, somehow, AlphaGo got out panties twisted. No one would seriously think you could win a time trial against a machine, for example. No one even *tries* to outdo an automated machine gun [*]. And, mind you, the mental fortitude of either profession is not out of pop culture. How many underground trains have a human on the "wheel" for anxiety more than real use? And train drivers are professionals, not an inexperienced, testosteroned fool. There are other disciplines with equivalent examples. Machines have been better than us for a while in so many human fields.

And, yet... Go.

I think it says more about us than it says about technology.

If you wanna catch up in that way you'll have to do some crazy genetic engineering and change our species. Otherwise just see it as a teacher and a standard to measure ourselves against.

I've been thinking for a while on Vinge's option.

Take care.


[*] The closest is here. And the robot looks much more ready (rested) to make the next 1000 cuts.