3 ms·

> This is basically the only thing the computers can definitely outdo you, the human, on. They really can't think as good as you. Can you give some intuition

> This is basically the only thing the computers can definitely outdo you, the human, on. They really can't think as good as you. Can you give some intuition about “thinking”? Is “thinking” what I do when playing chess? In my case probably not, but let’s say a grandmaster. Because if so, in that domain, whatever a computer is doing seems superior to “thinking”.

jrm4 5y ago
But for me that's a lot like "a car going faster than a person running." Machines are good at well defined tasks, but not good at determining what those tasks should be, or even how to do them, etc.
- burrows 5y ago
  > But for me that's a lot like "a car going faster than a person running." Yeah, I’d love to have car-like locomotive capability built in to my bio-machine. Or, maybe I wouldn’t, I dunno what all the consequences would be. > Machines are good at well defined tasks, but not good at determining what those tasks should be, or even how to do them, etc. But as a human, I mostly just copy-paste other humans. I’m not out here Solving Life from first principles.
  - jrm4 5y ago
    Weirdly, I think your second bit (solving from first principles) is much closer to the truth of how human brains work than "copy-paste?" Which harmonizes quite well with my first point? As great as computers are, I think a big problem is how they've created this tendency for bad analogies when it comes to the details. Not really different from how Frankenstein came about from people watching the advent of mechanical stuff like gears and pistons and such, and then made the LEAP to "HUMAN LIKE MONSTER." I'm not saying it will never ever happen -- but I'm still comfortable saying, even today, computers are NOTHING AT ALL LIKE human brains.
    - burrows 5y ago
      > Weirdly, I think your second bit (solving from first principles) is much closer to the truth of how human brains work than "copy-paste?" Which harmonizes quite well with my first point? I suppose we just disagree about this. My own experiences indicate that mostly I ape other humans rather than “figure” things out. > As great as computers are, I think a big problem is how they've created this tendency for bad analogies when it comes to the details. Not really different from how Frankenstein came about from people watching the advent of mechanical stuff like gears and pistons and such, and then made the LEAP to "HUMAN LIKE MONSTER." But isn’t that happening in the real world? Machines intended to present as human are becoming more human-like overtime. > I'm not saying it will never ever happen -- but I'm still comfortable saying, even today, computers are NOTHING AT ALL LIKE human brains. I don’t think computers need to work like brains in order to do most of or all of the things that humans do. As you pointed out a car doesn’t need to work like a human’s locomotive system to do like human locomotion.

jrm4 5y ago

But for me that's a lot like "a car going faster than a person running." Machines are good at well defined tasks, but not good at determining what those tasks should be, or even how to do them, etc.

burrows 5y ago
> But for me that's a lot like "a car going faster than a person running." Yeah, I’d love to have car-like locomotive capability built in to my bio-machine. Or, maybe I wouldn’t, I dunno what all the consequences would be. > Machines are good at well defined tasks, but not good at determining what those tasks should be, or even how to do them, etc. But as a human, I mostly just copy-paste other humans. I’m not out here Solving Life from first principles.
- jrm4 5y ago
  Weirdly, I think your second bit (solving from first principles) is much closer to the truth of how human brains work than "copy-paste?" Which harmonizes quite well with my first point? As great as computers are, I think a big problem is how they've created this tendency for bad analogies when it comes to the details. Not really different from how Frankenstein came about from people watching the advent of mechanical stuff like gears and pistons and such, and then made the LEAP to "HUMAN LIKE MONSTER." I'm not saying it will never ever happen -- but I'm still comfortable saying, even today, computers are NOTHING AT ALL LIKE human brains.
  - burrows 5y ago
    > Weirdly, I think your second bit (solving from first principles) is much closer to the truth of how human brains work than "copy-paste?" Which harmonizes quite well with my first point? I suppose we just disagree about this. My own experiences indicate that mostly I ape other humans rather than “figure” things out. > As great as computers are, I think a big problem is how they've created this tendency for bad analogies when it comes to the details. Not really different from how Frankenstein came about from people watching the advent of mechanical stuff like gears and pistons and such, and then made the LEAP to "HUMAN LIKE MONSTER." But isn’t that happening in the real world? Machines intended to present as human are becoming more human-like overtime. > I'm not saying it will never ever happen -- but I'm still comfortable saying, even today, computers are NOTHING AT ALL LIKE human brains. I don’t think computers need to work like brains in order to do most of or all of the things that humans do. As you pointed out a car doesn’t need to work like a human’s locomotive system to do like human locomotion.