3 ms·

Everything computers do better than people was taught to them by humans in some way. There's no reason to assume that human level performance is a cap. There's

by hopler 8y ago

Everything computers do better than people was taught to them by humans in some way. There's no reason to assume that human level performance is a cap. There's always theoretical exceptions, but doing a known worse thing is irrational.

ben_w 8y ago
Not everything. AlphaZero learned Chess and Go better by playing against itself.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> Everything computers do better than people was taught to them by humans in some way. I find this a false dichotomy. Computers don't "do" things: they have no capacity for choosing their own actions- we do things, using computers to perform whatever task we choose better than we could without a computer. By analogy, I can't hammer a nail with my bare hands as well as I can with a hammer. Does that mean that the hammer is better at hammering down nails than me, or humans, in general? Isn't that a completely absurd thing to say? And if I say that I'm better at hammering nails than a hammer is, because a hammer can't just get up and hammer a nail, isn't that completely nonsensical, also? Rather, we can see myself holding a hammer as a system of a human using a tool to perform a task to a higher degree of quality than possible without the tool. That goes for computers, also, as well as for any other kind of tool that doesn't have its own free will (i.e. tools not of a kind we don't know how to create yet). So, if you wish to argue that humans with computers can do some things better than humans without computers, then I agree with you, fully. But, if you want to argue that computers can do things on their own, right now, as opposed to the distant future when they will probably be able to choose their own actions, then I have to cough politely and change subject. Nice weather today, don't you think?

3 ms·

Everything computers do better than people was taught to them by humans in some way. There's no reason to assume that human level performance is a cap. There's

by hopler 8y ago

ben_w 8y ago
Not everything. AlphaZero learned Chess and Go better by playing against itself.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> Everything computers do better than people was taught to them by humans in some way. I find this a false dichotomy. Computers don't "do" things: they have no capacity for choosing their own actions- we do things, using computers to perform whatever task we choose better than we could without a computer. By analogy, I can't hammer a nail with my bare hands as well as I can with a hammer. Does that mean that the hammer is better at hammering down nails than me, or humans, in general? Isn't that a completely absurd thing to say? And if I say that I'm better at hammering nails than a hammer is, because a hammer can't just get up and hammer a nail, isn't that completely nonsensical, also? Rather, we can see myself holding a hammer as a system of a human using a tool to perform a task to a higher degree of quality than possible without the tool. That goes for computers, also, as well as for any other kind of tool that doesn't have its own free will (i.e. tools not of a kind we don't know how to create yet). So, if you wish to argue that humans with computers can do some things better than humans without computers, then I agree with you, fully. But, if you want to argue that computers can do things on their own, right now, as opposed to the distant future when they will probably be able to choose their own actions, then I have to cough politely and change subject. Nice weather today, don't you think?