4 ms·
The goalposts are exactly where I said they are. They have always been there for people that actually understand the nature of the problem. The fact that some p
by TaupeRanger 8y ago
The goalposts are exactly where I said they are. They have always been there for people that actually understand the nature of the problem. The fact that some people were spectacularly and obviously wrong about the nature of chess programs is irrelevant.
- mcv 8y agoNow you're just trying to sound pompous in an attempt to seem authoritative, but you're really not saying anything meaningful here. Where are those goalposts according to you? Who are those "people that actually understand the nature of the problem"? Which people are "spectacularly and obviously wrong about the nature of chess programs"? It is AI researchers themselves who decided that chess and game-playing in general were interesting to research. Everybody used to consider skill at chess a sign of intelligence. There have been many, many problems that have long been complex problems for AI to tackle, and that have only recently struck people as being not really about intelligence. Creativity was barely on the table for many decades, and has only recently come within reach of AI research. I wonder if maybe you're only looking at the last 20 years, and ignore the half century before that.