4 ms·
Statistics is not everything. Which hypothesis can lead to the outcome "AIs will not be able to beat humans in every game"? I can see following hypotheses (in
by red75prime 8y ago
Statistics is not everything. Which hypothesis can lead to the outcome "AIs will not be able to beat humans in every game"?
I can see following hypotheses (in no particular order):
1. Human brain is the optimal solution in the space of all computational devices capable of playing games, and we can only approach it.
2. To do computation human brain employs some physical processes, we will not be able to replicate in the foreseeable future.
3. Human brain do not produce general intelligence, so we will not be able to replicate it as such a task is outside of the scope of our limited intelligence (while playing games isn't).
4. Human brain uses metaphysical abilities to do cognition, we will not be to replicate them at all.
5. Human brain is a local optimum, but the space of potential AIs' constructions is too huge to explore in the lifetime of our civilization, so we will be stuck at this local optimum with marginal improvements.
I don't see any of them as sufficiently likely, but your mileage may vary.
- ethbro 8y agoI'd point to a combination of (2) and (5) as the maximally likely reason we'd fail to build a generalized game playing system. I believe there exists a combination of hardware and software capable of beating humans in all games. However, I also believe victory in a single game gives us minimal information on whether or not the system generalizes to many games (to say nothing of non-game, e.g. more complex, ruleless systems).