7 ms·

The human records will shift to become about who made the AI. So in case you are afraid to no more be able to brag about having biggest, because of AI, fear not

The human records will shift to become about who made the AI. So in case you are afraid to no more be able to brag about having biggest, because of AI, fear not, it's like saying horses beat all human running records. It will just get forked into a new category of games.

reustle 11y ago
> human records will shift to become about who made the AI No the uman records will remain human records, and the AI records will be come AI records
zizee 11y ago
it's like saying horses beat all human running records Not to detract from your original comment, but human's are pretty competitive with horses over long distance running https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon
- mtgx 11y ago
  Sayings "cars" beat all human records would probably be a better analogy here.
- mamon 11y ago
  Looking at the times of both horses and humans it seems that the main problem of this race is lack of professional competitors. When I see that the horse rider won by covering 35 km distance in 2 hours 40 minutes (on some years)then I think: that would be beaten by any professional marathon runner, who tend to beat that time on longer 42 km distance.
  - beeboop 11y ago
    Also major contributor is the mild weather. Make this race take place in dry 110F heat and you'd probably see very different results.
- blaze33 11y ago
  Nope, horses are still faster than the fastest human marathon runners, see http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/6465 http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/6465
  - meric 11y ago
    The humans were within 20% difference of horse times, and these weren't the top human marathon runners. I'd think the use of "competitive" could be loosely allowed.
  - beeboop 11y ago
    It's really a matter of how long, in time, the race is. Someone in your link even mentions this. The 24 hour record for humans around 180 miles, whereas for horses it's about 100 miles. Pretty huge difference there.
    - blaze33 11y ago
      Ha, good point, maybe the horse cannot run for 24h non-stop when that would be possible for a human. Nevertheless if a horse can cover 100 miles in ~6 hours, he still has 18 hours for the remaining 80 miles, so allowing him to rest (which is also pretty common in some human ultra-trails) I'm pretty sure the horse could still beat the human record of 180 miles in 24 hours.

reustle 11y ago

> human records will shift to become about who made the AI No the uman records will remain human records, and the AI records will be come AI records

zizee 11y ago

it's like saying horses beat all human running records Not to detract from your original comment, but human's are pretty competitive with horses over long distance running https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon

mtgx 11y ago
Sayings "cars" beat all human records would probably be a better analogy here.
mamon 11y ago
Looking at the times of both horses and humans it seems that the main problem of this race is lack of professional competitors. When I see that the horse rider won by covering 35 km distance in 2 hours 40 minutes (on some years)then I think: that would be beaten by any professional marathon runner, who tend to beat that time on longer 42 km distance.
- beeboop 11y ago
  Also major contributor is the mild weather. Make this race take place in dry 110F heat and you'd probably see very different results.
blaze33 11y ago
Nope, horses are still faster than the fastest human marathon runners, see http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/6465 http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/6465
- meric 11y ago
  The humans were within 20% difference of horse times, and these weren't the top human marathon runners. I'd think the use of "competitive" could be loosely allowed.
- beeboop 11y ago
  It's really a matter of how long, in time, the race is. Someone in your link even mentions this. The 24 hour record for humans around 180 miles, whereas for horses it's about 100 miles. Pretty huge difference there.
  - blaze33 11y ago
    Ha, good point, maybe the horse cannot run for 24h non-stop when that would be possible for a human. Nevertheless if a horse can cover 100 miles in ~6 hours, he still has 18 hours for the remaining 80 miles, so allowing him to rest (which is also pretty common in some human ultra-trails) I'm pretty sure the horse could still beat the human record of 180 miles in 24 hours.