On 12/25/2025 4:40 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 8:40 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:

*I want to start by saying that I wish we were having this conversation on the list.*

        *>> Whenever AI makes an advancethe goal post moves.  At one
        time making a brilliant chess movewas considered a preeminent
        example of human creativity and abstract thought, but 25 years
        ago when a computer made a brilliant chess move people
        suddenly decided that chess had nothing to do with creativity. *


    /> It was never considered and example of human creativity. /


*That is incorrect. In his 1979 book "Gödel Escher Bach" Douglas Hofstadter argued that  a computer to beating a chess grandmasterwould require General Artificial Intelligence. He said chess mastery is a byproduct of high-level cognition.It would need to understand symbols, abstractions, and the world at large. To his credit much more recently Hofstetter admitted he was wrong and said that the enormous success of modern LLMs has "overturned" many of his core beliefs about the unique nature of human consciousness and intelligence. *

    /> The fact that humans have proposed several false tests for AGI
    doesn't prove that there is no such test; only that it has yet to
    be proposed./


*Many** tests for AGI have been proposed, but for some strange reason whenever a computer beats a human at one of those tests the test suddenly becomes obsolete and means nothing. I see no evidence that humans possess some sort of secret sauce that a machine could not emulate. *
Have you tried to think of one or have you just assumed that there can't be one?

        *>> And a great human grandmasterhas developed a specialized
        chess program in his head, that's why he may be able to beat
        any human being on the planet at the game of chess but he's
        not especially good at anything else. There is however one big
        difference between the human and the computer, the human
        developed his skill after years of watching other grandmasters
        and reading books about chess, but the computer program
        AlphaZero needed no help from anything except simple
        instructions that told it (or him or her)  which moves were
        legal and which were illegal. And just 24 hours later, after
        playing millions of games of chess against itself,
        AlphaZero was able to beatthat human chess grandmaster. *


    /> But would that work at Poker?/


*Yes. No-limit Texas Hold'em is the most popular form of poker and it's played in the World Series of Poker, and in 2017 the AI program "Libratus" defeated the best human poker players in the world. It got so good at the game by using something called Counterfactual Regret Minimization. It played trillions of hands of poker against copies of itself and after each hand it in effect looks back and asks "what if I had played differently?" For every decision pointit calculates regret for not taking alternative actions and gradually adjusts its strategy to minimize this regret. This processconverges to a Nash equilibrium strategy which is unexploitable even by a perfect opponent who knows your strategy.*
I didn't know that; very interesting. And I'll bet it had an excellent poker face.


            />>> The difference is that human specialization emerges
            from a single, unified system/


        *>>If that was true then Einsteincould've used language to
        explain exactly how he got such wonderfully good ideas*

    />How do you know he couldn't? /


*I know that because I have read some of the stuff he has written butI'm still not as smart as Einstein.*
I've read stuff he wrote too, but I don't recall him explaining how he got good ideas except in few instances.  I doubt you even know how you get good ideas.  It seems to me they just come into my mind as a think of a problem.

 Have you read the book that describes Einstein's patented ideas. He patented quite a few inventions and in some cases, with the help of an engineering partner, tried to make them into products. For example he patented an airfoil.  The only one that worked was a gas refrigerator.  Even geniuses don't always have good ideas.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b0a8f285-5bf7-4c67-b6ce-2917810f523a%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to