4 ms·

I think that downplaying the achievement is more like defensive mechanism which exists to protect illusion of human brain superiority.

sgillen 7y ago
Part of the problem is the hype in the other direction. I guess there are those who claim that this sort of result constitutes super human intelligence or something close to AGI. When in reality this is a hyper specialized system that has taken many man years of work to realize.
TaupeRanger 7y ago
Not at all. We've known machines are better than humans at machine-like tasks for hundreds of years. IMO responses like yours are defense mechanisms of AI researchers/enthusiasts who want to protect the illusion that they are creating things that do anything remotely resembling what the human brain does.
- drchewbacca 7y ago
  Kasparov comments on chess computers in an interview with Thierry Paunin on pages 4-5 of issue 55 of Jeux & Stratégie (published in 1989): ‘Question: ... Two top grandmasters have gone down to chess computers: Portisch against “Leonardo” and Larsen against “Deep Thought”. It is well known that you have strong views on this subject. Will a computer be world champion, one day ...? Kasparov: Ridiculous! A machine will always remain a machine, that is to say a tool to help the player work and prepare. Never shall I be beaten by a machine! Never will a program be invented which surpasses human intelligence. And when I say intelligence, I also mean intuition and imagination. Can you see a machine writing a novel or poetry? Better still, can you imagine a machine conducting this interview instead of you? With me replying to its questions?’
  - TaupeRanger 7y ago
    The fact that Kasparov was obviously wrong about a computer's ability to solve a concrete optimization problem better than him says nothing of value whatsoever and essentially proves my original point. We already knew machines were better than humans at these kinds of tasks, but people (like Kasparov) who didn't understand what computers were capable of will make wrong statements.

sgillen 7y ago

Part of the problem is the hype in the other direction. I guess there are those who claim that this sort of result constitutes super human intelligence or something close to AGI. When in reality this is a hyper specialized system that has taken many man years of work to realize.

TaupeRanger 7y ago

Not at all. We've known machines are better than humans at machine-like tasks for hundreds of years. IMO responses like yours are defense mechanisms of AI researchers/enthusiasts who want to protect the illusion that they are creating things that do anything remotely resembling what the human brain does.

drchewbacca 7y ago
Kasparov comments on chess computers in an interview with Thierry Paunin on pages 4-5 of issue 55 of Jeux & Stratégie (published in 1989): ‘Question: ... Two top grandmasters have gone down to chess computers: Portisch against “Leonardo” and Larsen against “Deep Thought”. It is well known that you have strong views on this subject. Will a computer be world champion, one day ...? Kasparov: Ridiculous! A machine will always remain a machine, that is to say a tool to help the player work and prepare. Never shall I be beaten by a machine! Never will a program be invented which surpasses human intelligence. And when I say intelligence, I also mean intuition and imagination. Can you see a machine writing a novel or poetry? Better still, can you imagine a machine conducting this interview instead of you? With me replying to its questions?’
- TaupeRanger 7y ago
  The fact that Kasparov was obviously wrong about a computer's ability to solve a concrete optimization problem better than him says nothing of value whatsoever and essentially proves my original point. We already knew machines were better than humans at these kinds of tasks, but people (like Kasparov) who didn't understand what computers were capable of will make wrong statements.