2 ms·
Computer Chess and Go is so far ahead of human ability now that it doesn't matter how many humans decide to take up the game seriously. I see your broader point
by famouswaffles 3y ago
Computer Chess and Go is so far ahead of human ability now that it doesn't matter how many humans decide to take up the game seriously. I see your broader point but it doesn't really matter here.
Yes what is designated a task is a fair bit arbitrary but game playing AI's have been
popularly designated narrow (well basically anything besides LLMs are narrow) for a long time now.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoSure. My point is that this classification is useful only within its category. Say I have a specific problem, like "play chess" or "play StarCraft" or "do maths" or "spellcheck essays". It would be great to have a task-specific list of algorithms ranked by their "Narrow" levels. It would help with use cases like: "oh, model X here spellchecks at level 5N, but is super complex, meanwhile algorithm Y is only Level 3N, but it fits on a napkin; Y is more than sufficient for my MVP". But this rating doesn't let us compare between tasks. That's fine by itself, but then it doesn't make sense to use the same rating for both specialized and general algorithms.