Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
2013/8/24 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com ** ** ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark *Sent:* Friday, August 23, 2013 12:58 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test? ** ** ** ** ** ** On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: ** ** The computer requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the CPU chips for example are what our computers operate on. I know of no computer that does not require this external structured environment The human requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the brain for example is what our human minds operate on. I know of no human that does not require this external structured environment. Yes… and? Every computer in existence requires external enabling hardware. Every human in existence requires external enabling hardware. Yes but humans are not universal computing machines, if indeed we are machines. Do we know enough about how our brains work and are structured to the level that we would need to in order to be able to answer that question with any degree of certainty? I was referring to the hypothesized deterministic universe, Well it's not because the universe is deterministic that it is computable... it may require infinite precision to get the next step... that's why computability and cause and effect are not related contrary to what John Clarck like to say (if something has a cause/reason then it is computable, that's just plain wrong). It's not because it's determined that it has a finite description... A computation + an oracle is not a computation *alone*... it requires the oracle doing an hypercomputation or handling the infinite stuff, while the whole object could still be said to behave deterministically it is not computable. Quentin in which everything that has happened can be computed from the initial state and has followed on from that original set of conditions… that we live in a deterministic universe and that everything that has or will ever happen is pre-destined and already baked in to the unfolding fabric of our experiencing of reality. If a computer operates from within a local frame of reference and context, but far from being isolated and existing alone is instead connected to much vaster environments and meta-processes that are potentially very loosely coupled -- based on in direct means such as say message passing through queues or other signals – then can its own outputs be said to be completely deterministic – even if we consider its own internal operations to be constrained to be deterministic? Operations, especially ones that are parts of much larger workflows etc. are being mutated by many actors and potentially with sophisticated stripe locking strategies, for example, having their data stores being accessed concurrently by multiple separate processes. There are just so many pseudo random and hard to predict or model occurrences – such as say lock contention – that are occurring at huge rates (when seen from sufficiently high up any large architecture)*** * I find it hard to see how the resulting outcomes produced by such kinds of systems can be determined based on a knowledge of the state of the system at some initial instant in time. If a computer requires a substrate which it can manipulate in order to perform its logical operations then a universal computer is impossible because the substrate would necessarily be outside and foundational to its domain. If a human requires a substrate which it can manipulate in order to perform its logical operations then a universal human is impossible because the substrate would necessarily be outside and foundational to its domain. Agreed. Humans are exceedingly far from being universal. Our very sense of self precludes universality. Cheers, -Chris ** ** ** ** ** ** -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. --
Leibniz's two types of existence based on the two types of logic
Leibniz's two types of existence based on the two types of logic Brahma is a version of existence, but it doesn't permit actual scientific experiments. According to Leibniz, there is necessary (permanent) or mental existence and contingent or actual existence. But mental existence can only be dealt with using mind and logic, so is not actual. And actual existence is tentative. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote The computer requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the CPU chips for example are what our computers operate on. I know of no computer that does not require this external structured environment The human requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the brain for example is what our human minds operate on. I know of no human that does not require this external structured environment. Yes… and? And you tell me, those are your ideas not mine. I don't see the relevance but I thought you did. Every computer in existence requires external enabling hardware. Every human in existence requires external enabling hardware. Yes but humans are not universal computing machines, If we're not universal then we are provincial computing machines. Do you really think this strengthens your case concerning the superiority of humans? if indeed we are machines. We are either cuckoo clocks or roulette wheels, take your pick. Do we know enough about how our brains work and are structured to the level that we would need to in order to be able to answer that question with any degree of certainty? Yes absolutely! I can say with no fear of contradiction that things in the brain happen for a reason or they do not happen for a reason. I was referring to the hypothesized deterministic universe, in which everything that has happened can be computed from the initial state and has followed on from that original set of conditions Everything in modern physics and mathematics says that determinism is false, but who cares, we were talking about intelligence and biological minds and computer minds; what does the truth of falsehood of determinism have to do with the price of eggs? John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
2013/8/24 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote The computer requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the CPU chips for example are what our computers operate on. I know of no computer that does not require this external structured environment The human requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the brain for example is what our human minds operate on. I know of no human that does not require this external structured environment. Yes… and? And you tell me, those are your ideas not mine. I don't see the relevance but I thought you did. Every computer in existence requires external enabling hardware. Every human in existence requires external enabling hardware. Yes but humans are not universal computing machines, If we're not universal then we are provincial computing machines. Do you really think this strengthens your case concerning the superiority of humans? if indeed we are machines. We are either cuckoo clocks or roulette wheels, take your pick. Do we know enough about how our brains work and are structured to the level that we would need to in order to be able to answer that question with any degree of certainty? Yes absolutely! I can say with no fear of contradiction that things in the brain happen for a reason or they do not happen for a reason. I was referring to the hypothesized deterministic universe, in which everything that has happened can be computed from the initial state and has followed on from that original set of conditions Everything in modern physics and mathematics says that determinism is false, That's wrong, MWI is deterministic... and again, deterministic and computable are two different thing. Quentin but who cares, we were talking about intelligence and biological minds and computer minds; what does the truth of falsehood of determinism have to do with the price of eggs? John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Deep Blue vs The Tianhe-2 Supercomputer
Suppose that in 1997 you had a very difficult problem to solve, so difficult that it would take Deep Blue, the supercomputer that beat the best human chess player in the world, 18 years to solve, what should you do? You'd do better to let Moore's law do all the heavy lifting and leave Deep Blue alone and sit on your hands from 1997 until just 2 minutes ago, because that's how long it would take the 2013 supercomputer Tianhe-2 to solve the problem. And in 20 years your wristwatch will be more powerful than Tianhe-2. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:09 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: Supporting the Nazis was the right thing to for the Arabs back then. [...] Also I believe that 9/11 was a good thing You sir are an ass. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
Sex would be more interesting, purely, from a Hugh Everett the 3rd point of view of course. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Aug 23, 2013 2:48 pm Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood To talk about politics in a group is like sex exhibition: it exert an irresistible attention that disturb the whole group. That is one of the main reasons why sex exhibition (and politics) is prohibited in most real and virtual places: It makes impossible any other activity. it is like a black hole that disolves the stablished network of pacific exchange of information about different interests. The same happens with politics and maybe other things that attract an instinctive attention. I hope not to have switched the discussion to sex. 2013/8/23 spudboy...@aol.com Surprising the uprising against Morsi, was centrally about economic stagnation, food prices, inflation, and unemployment-not per se' a political issue or even a religious one. These people, for the most part, were not objecting to Islamic Law (Sharia) for example, but being able to purchase enough rice, and lamb. One writer, this week, compared the resistance of the Egyptian Army to the roll-over of the Wehrmacht, in Germany, in the 1930's. The old Prussian ruling class did suspect adolf would lead them into a bad (for Germany) military situation, but went along, as the people seemed to support the fuhrer, and wanted to avoid bloodshed in the streets, as we see in Egypt today. The military in Egypt may have chosen to take the less, disastrous, path, since Morsi's MB collectives, may have induced a calamity, in which Cairo and Alexandra would be vanished. Your support of the Islamist agenda (De Facto) is indeed, troubling. -Original Message- From: smitra smi...@zonnet.nl To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Aug 22, 2013 10:17 am Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood In these sorts of polls the proper context is missing. Then you can asily fall in the same trap as the Germans who supported Hitler. In gypt you actually see this very clearly, a large fraction of the opulation who are against the Muslim Brotherhood are saying that the undreds of dead civilians are not the responsibility of the security orces that these civilians deserved to die for supporting the Muslim rotherhood. This is fascism, it is not per se that you have some evil dictator in ower who is doing bad things, but it is a government who does bad hings with the support of a large fraction of the population, and hat then these bad things are perceived to be good things. Saibal Citeren spudboy...@aol.com: Its a solid majoritarian opinion by the Umah (Islamic nation) tho' their are huge schisms within Islam..Sunni v Shia, Amadi's (the good guys). A PEW opinion survey of Islamic states bears Alberto's views out-sorry to say. It's not bigotry, if is true, nor is it propaganda, if one is not, using a little truth to tell a big lie. It's telling a big truth, about how the Faithful view the world, and to educate, and accept the facts as they are. What to do about this if we are correct is complicated. Frankly, I am guessing that we might mitigate this dilemma by focusing on the prime motivation within Islam--Life after Death. It is, as we yanks say, what gets them out of bed in the morning It's even more central to Islam then it is to Christianity we can put our collective efforts there instead of focusing on personal attacks, or ideological correctness. Mitch -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 8:52 pm Subject: RE: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood More hateful stereotyping of a diverse group numbering over a billion human beings by our very own fascist troll From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:02 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood Just follow the tv of muslim countries, and specially, the political debates. Google: hitler arab countries television It can not be otherwhise since te nazis and the muslims share the same main goal. you know. Abu Mazen, the leader of the PLO after Yasif Arafat wrote its doctoral thesis at the university about denial of the Holocaust. The Baaz party that ruled Iraq and Siria are inspired directly by the Nazi party. There are hundred of examples of continuous praise of hitler or hitler-inspired ideas in the musling world. If you search, you can find a lot of nazi flags waved by muslim fundamentalists. even on the top of mesquites 2013/8/21 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
RE: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote The computer requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the CPU chips for example are what our computers operate on. I know of no computer that does not require this external structured environment The human requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the brain for example is what our human minds operate on. I know of no human that does not require this external structured environment. Yes. and? And you tell me, those are your ideas not mine. I don't see the relevance but I thought you did. There is no relevance unless one is attempting to posit the existence of a universal computer. All measurable processes - including information processing -- happen over and require for their operations some physical substrate. My point, which I believe either you may have missed or you are dodging is that therefore a universal computer is impossible, because there would always need to be some underlying and external container for the process that could not therefore itself be completely contained within the process. Every computer in existence requires external enabling hardware. Every human in existence requires external enabling hardware. Yes but humans are not universal computing machines, If we're not universal then we are provincial computing machines. Do you really think this strengthens your case concerning the superiority of humans? Whoa there, when did I make that statement? I am not interested in nor do I much care whether humans are superior or inferior to computers or, in fact termites or microbes or anything else we could potentially be measured against. This does not drive my interest in the least. Who cares about our relative ranking in the universe; certainly not I. if indeed we are machines. We are either cuckoo clocks or roulette wheels, take your pick. Not sure whether you are attempting to be funny or are pouring the irony on a little thick. An average human brain has somewhere around 86 billion neurons and as far as we are able to count around 100 trillion synapses. Characterizing this fantastically dense crackling network as a cuckoo clock or a roulette wheel is rather facile. If we are machines then we are surely fantastically complex and highly dynamic ones. Do we know enough about how our brains work and are structured to the level that we would need to in order to be able to answer that question with any degree of certainty? Yes absolutely! I can say with no fear of contradiction that things in the brain happen for a reason or they do not happen for a reason. You have said absolutely nothing that means anything more than reiterating your belief in reductionism. Something either happens or does not happen for a reason. sure.. and so what? What insight have you uncovered by stating the obvious. It certainly does not help answer the question I posed. We do not know enough about brain function in order to be able to model it with anything approaching certainty. This was my point and your reply added nothing of substance to that point, as far as I can see. I can say that things happen, for a reason or they do not happen for a reason, for any phenomena whatsoever, in the universe, but I have not therefore, by stating the obvious, uncovered any deeper truths or given any insight into any process or underlying physical laws. It is meaningless and it leads nowhere in terms of providing any actual valuable insight or explanation. It speaks but without saying anything. What is your point? What insight does that give you into the mechanisms by which thought, self-awareness, consciousness, arise in our brains? I was referring to the hypothesized deterministic universe, in which everything that has happened can be computed from the initial state and has followed on from that original set of conditions Everything in modern physics and mathematics says that determinism is false, but who cares, we were talking about intelligence and biological minds and computer minds; what does the truth of falsehood of determinism have to do with the price of eggs? I suspect we may be having parallel conversations and are simply not communicating all that well. In principle I am agnostic about AI arising in a machine. I am humble enough however to admit that so much of the fine grained details of brain functioning are still not understood and that therefore it is impossible for us to model the dynamic functioning of the human brain. Perhaps someday - even soon maybe - we will have the fine detailed maps of all the connections (including all the axons as well) and the dynamic patterns of activity that traverse them - but until then all we really have is hypothesis conjecture. And.. Until we are able to build a fine grained and falsifiable model of how the brain works and this model can be shown (by not being falsified of course) that it is able to have a powerfully
Re: God's God
John, that was a clever cartoon, which of course leaves the viewer seeing humanity' as the hero. The humanity character was too busy sitting under a tree, to help resolve misery and death. Of course, he could have been working on those wee concerns insteady of bitching at the imaginary characters, he (humanity?) created. Yes, while (whilst?) under the tree humanity could have been working on those problems them, but the character struck me as a little, too, narcissistic to have any confidence in. Which is how many (not all!) Atheists strike me as being. Secondly, I am not too certain at this juncture that humanity or Humanity, can survive, or that civilization will stand long enough for magical humanity to fix everything, as I am sure the character would have or maybe does, in other of those cartoons. But, what about a Concept of God that would not please Dr. Clough, or Thomas Aquinas? What if the nature of God was as Ludwig Boltzmann conjecture, A Boltzmann Brain? Are you familiar with this concept? Have you seen it before and dismissed it? Curious, this primate (me) is. Sincerely, Mitch -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Aug 23, 2013 11:19 am Subject: God's God http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Deep Blue vs The Tianhe-2 Supercomputer
As I tried to comment in the other thread concerning chess: it's not just about power, it's also about quality of coding. Just one fresh opening, a novel variation or line in the mid game, a bug in the code, one position falsely assessed, and all computing power in the universe will still lose that game. To generalize this to all problems seems a bit quick. PGC On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:07 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Suppose that in 1997 you had a very difficult problem to solve, so difficult that it would take Deep Blue, the supercomputer that beat the best human chess player in the world, 18 years to solve, what should you do? You'd do better to let Moore's law do all the heavy lifting and leave Deep Blue alone and sit on your hands from 1997 until just 2 minutes ago, because that's how long it would take the 2013 supercomputer Tianhe-2 to solve the problem. And in 20 years your wristwatch will be more powerful than Tianhe-2. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
With hindsight 9/11 was a good thing to have happened, it ended up exposing the fascist Neo-Cons for what they were. The Neo-Con ideology was defeated on the battlegrounds of Iraq. It is sad that it had to happen that way with all the innocent victims in the US and Iraq, but I believe that the US and the rest of the World are today better off with these things having happened. Citeren John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:09 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: Supporting the Nazis was the right thing to for the Arabs back then. [...] Also I believe that 9/11 was a good thing You sir are an ass. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Deep Blue vs The Tianhe-2 Supercomputer
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: As I tried to comment in the other thread concerning chess: it's not just about power, it's also about quality of coding. Just one fresh opening, a novel variation or line in the mid game, a bug in the code, one position falsely assessed, and all computing power in the universe will still lose that game. To generalize this to all problems seems a bit quick. PGC I agree with the sentiment. Chess is a very narrow case though: the min-max algorithm plus a brutal amount of computing power is surely going to beat a human. The min-max algorithm is so simple that it is not that hard to implement with zero defects. The issue, though, is the following: we currently only know how to beat top human players with brutal computational power. The part of the human brain devoted to playing chess (even in a Grand Master) cannot possibly match what we already do artificially in terms of computing power. It must use smarter algorithms. Our brain cannot possibly hold the gigantic search trees involved in min-max, it must be doing something much more clever. We don't know what that is. We are now approaching a point where we can have supercomputers with the same estimated computational power of a human brain, but we are very far from replicating its capabilities. There's even a lot of stuff insects do that we are not close to matching. I dare even say bacteria. There are many fundamental algorithms yet to be discovered, that's for sure. Also, Moore's law is bound to hit a physical limit. It cannot be that far now. It's already fishy, since it's being driven mostly by multicore architectures. Moving from the sequential to the parallel world is far from trivial in terms of software engineering. The brain is massively parallel and asynchronous, and we are still very bad with that sort of stuff. Maybe that's precisely where the missing good stuff lies. Incidentally, Richard Feynman was involved with a startup that tried to create a new type of highly parallel computer. Here's an interesting read about it: http://longnow.org/essays/richard-feynman-connection-machine/ I love this part: We were arguing about what the name of the company should be when Richard walked in, saluted, and said, Richard Feynman reporting for duty. OK, boss, what's my assignment? The assembled group of not-quite-graduated MIT students was astounded. After a hurried private discussion (I don't know, you hired him...), we informed Richard that his assignment would be to advise on the application of parallel processing to scientific problems. That sounds like a bunch of baloney, he said. Give me something real to do. So we sent him out to buy some office supplies. Telmo. On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:07 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Suppose that in 1997 you had a very difficult problem to solve, so difficult that it would take Deep Blue, the supercomputer that beat the best human chess player in the world, 18 years to solve, what should you do? You'd do better to let Moore's law do all the heavy lifting and leave Deep Blue alone and sit on your hands from 1997 until just 2 minutes ago, because that's how long it would take the 2013 supercomputer Tianhe-2 to solve the problem. And in 20 years your wristwatch will be more powerful than Tianhe-2. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Deep Blue vs The Tianhe-2 Supercomputer
Also, Moore's law is bound to hit a physical limit. It cannot be that far now. It's already fishy, since it's being driven mostly by multicore architectures. Moving from the sequential to the parallel world is far from trivial in terms of software engineering. The brain is massively parallel and asynchronous, and we are still very bad with that sort of stuff. Maybe that's precisely where the missing good stuff lies. There is massive effort in the computer business to solve the parallelization problem. For certain classes of problems it is trivial -- say dsp (digital signal processing) or image rendering... such tasks can be easily subdivided into smaller and smaller chunks that can be farmed out to as many concurrently running cores as one has at one's disposal. But many tasks are much harder to parallelize because one thing in a sequence depends on the outcomes of some other thing for example. A lot of work is going on to try to develop compiler algorithms that can discover opportunities for the parallelization of sequential linearized tasks in order to try to compile code into optimally chunked tasks that can be run in parallel. But as you said this is a hard class of problem and often it is not easily apparent when opportunities for parallelization exist or can be re-factored into some workflow or body of code. Multi-core architecture is going to continue to grow exponentially and soon we will be seeing 16 core, 32, 62, 256, 512, 1k core machines and off to the races we go. As you said -- going to multi-core architectures allows HW manufacturers to continue to drive metrics in an easy manner (so far at least) though at some point the inter communication of cores will grow harder and harder to manage and to keep a core level bus throughput going on. But on the Moore's Law still is holding for tradition metrics -- apart from the multi-core dimension of growth. The industry has also already ramped up considerable research into radical new possibilities and materials (such as carbon nano-tubes for example) a lot of the challenges for moving towards for example using electron spin as the holder of information and being able to go towards an architecture that can shuttle individual electrons. I don't get the sense that the industry is going to hit any fundamental physical Law limits on the further miniaturization and speeding up of hardware any time soon. Perhaps with traditional chip architectures limits may not be that much further off maybe ten years perhaps -- and AMD for example is having problems scaling down to 20nm (though Intel is churning them out at 22nm scale), but this applies for traditional chip architectures on silicon. What about graphene? DNA/other molecular computers? There remains a huge amount of room at the bottom to continue to scale down and I don't see any fundamental reasons why clever technologists with increasingly sophisticated micro and nano scale manufacturing chops cannot continue to devise clever ways to exploit various phenomena that can be controlled, switched and stored in one state or the other at those smaller and smaller scales and to grow in the orthogonal dimension of 3-D as well. In fact as fewer and fewer electrons get squeezed through gates (smaller and smaller scales) less and less power is needed and less and less waste heat is generated. In fact the human brain is a clear example of just how much room there is yet to go at the bottom... we have 20 watt multi-core machines with 86 billion processors running a one hundred trillion connection network all crackling away in a tightly folded case about the size of a grapefruit. How many generations of Moore's Law will it take to reach that kind of density? -Chris -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 2:00 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Deep Blue vs The Tianhe-2 Supercomputer On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: As I tried to comment in the other thread concerning chess: it's not just about power, it's also about quality of coding. Just one fresh opening, a novel variation or line in the mid game, a bug in the code, one position falsely assessed, and all computing power in the universe will still lose that game. To generalize this to all problems seems a bit quick. PGC I agree with the sentiment. Chess is a very narrow case though: the min-max algorithm plus a brutal amount of computing power is surely going to beat a human. The min-max algorithm is so simple that it is not that hard to implement with zero defects. The issue, though, is the following: we currently only know how to beat top human players with brutal computational power. The part of the human brain devoted to playing chess (even in a Grand Master) cannot possibly match what we already do artificially in terms of computing power. It
RE: Deep Blue vs The Tianhe-2 Supercomputer
Telmo -- Another crucial difference between the brain and current computer architectures is the huge difference between the two in terms of signal to noise ratios. The brain is a crackling and very noisy place and is in this way is very unlike silicon chips where the signal is very clear (at a large energy cost incidentally) We may experience our minds as a splendid inner silence -- well maybe not all of us -- but the actual brain environment is highly chatty and is cascading with signals talking over each other more like a lively cocktail party really. Computer architecture is the exact opposite in this regard, and this suggests that the two architectures must be very different and work on different principles or at least in very different manners. The brain seems to excel at somehow -- through what sleight of hand? -- pulling beautifully ordered reifications of sensorial perception streams (like the illusion we create of the three dimensional world arrayed in a stable manner around our point of perception that does not experience sudden gaps but instead persists in majestic stability even as the sensorial stream shuts down -- for example whenever we move our eyeballs from one spot to another) And it does so in the midst of a veritable cacophony of countless signals that would totally overwhelm any software we have and bring any attempt we could possibly cobble together to try to manage it or make sense of it to a grinding overloaded crashing halt. This is a fundamental architectural difference between how logic is built up, layer by layer, on a computer and how the brain does things. They are profoundly different approaches to how things are done. -Chris -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 2:00 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Deep Blue vs The Tianhe-2 Supercomputer On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: As I tried to comment in the other thread concerning chess: it's not just about power, it's also about quality of coding. Just one fresh opening, a novel variation or line in the mid game, a bug in the code, one position falsely assessed, and all computing power in the universe will still lose that game. To generalize this to all problems seems a bit quick. PGC I agree with the sentiment. Chess is a very narrow case though: the min-max algorithm plus a brutal amount of computing power is surely going to beat a human. The min-max algorithm is so simple that it is not that hard to implement with zero defects. The issue, though, is the following: we currently only know how to beat top human players with brutal computational power. The part of the human brain devoted to playing chess (even in a Grand Master) cannot possibly match what we already do artificially in terms of computing power. It must use smarter algorithms. Our brain cannot possibly hold the gigantic search trees involved in min-max, it must be doing something much more clever. We don't know what that is. We are now approaching a point where we can have supercomputers with the same estimated computational power of a human brain, but we are very far from replicating its capabilities. There's even a lot of stuff insects do that we are not close to matching. I dare even say bacteria. There are many fundamental algorithms yet to be discovered, that's for sure. Also, Moore's law is bound to hit a physical limit. It cannot be that far now. It's already fishy, since it's being driven mostly by multicore architectures. Moving from the sequential to the parallel world is far from trivial in terms of software engineering. The brain is massively parallel and asynchronous, and we are still very bad with that sort of stuff. Maybe that's precisely where the missing good stuff lies. Incidentally, Richard Feynman was involved with a startup that tried to create a new type of highly parallel computer. Here's an interesting read about it: http://longnow.org/essays/richard-feynman-connection-machine/ I love this part: We were arguing about what the name of the company should be when Richard walked in, saluted, and said, Richard Feynman reporting for duty. OK, boss, what's my assignment? The assembled group of not-quite-graduated MIT students was astounded. After a hurried private discussion (I don't know, you hired him...), we informed Richard that his assignment would be to advise on the application of parallel processing to scientific problems. That sounds like a bunch of baloney, he said. Give me something real to do. So we sent him out to buy some office supplies. Telmo. On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:07 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Suppose that in 1997 you had a very difficult problem to solve, so difficult that it would take Deep Blue, the supercomputer that beat the best human chess player in the world, 18 years
Re: Deep Blue vs The Tianhe-2 Supercomputer
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Also, Moore's law is bound to hit a physical limit. It cannot be that far now. It's already fishy, since it's being driven mostly by multicore architectures. Moving from the sequential to the parallel world is far from trivial in terms of software engineering. The brain is massively parallel and asynchronous, and we are still very bad with that sort of stuff. Maybe that's precisely where the missing good stuff lies. There is massive effort in the computer business to solve the parallelization problem. For certain classes of problems it is trivial -- say dsp (digital signal processing) or image rendering... such tasks can be easily subdivided into smaller and smaller chunks that can be farmed out to as many concurrently running cores as one has at one's disposal. Hi Chris, Yes, the so-called embarrassingly parallel problems. But many tasks are much harder to parallelize because one thing in a sequence depends on the outcomes of some other thing for example. A lot of work is going on to try to develop compiler algorithms that can discover opportunities for the parallelization of sequential linearized tasks in order to try to compile code into optimally chunked tasks that can be run in parallel. But as you said this is a hard class of problem and often it is not easily apparent when opportunities for parallelization exist or can be re-factored into some workflow or body of code. Some recent progress has been made by re-discovering 50's-style functional programming solutions -- arguably brought to the modern era by Google's map-reduce algorithms. But this is still very far from the dreams of the Connection Machine that I mentioned before. Multi-core architecture is going to continue to grow exponentially and soon we will be seeing 16 core, 32, 62, 256, 512, 1k core machines and off to the races we go. As you said -- going to multi-core architectures allows HW manufacturers to continue to drive metrics in an easy manner (so far at least) though at some point the inter communication of cores will grow harder and harder to manage and to keep a core level bus throughput going on. But on the Moore's Law still is holding for tradition metrics -- apart from the multi-core dimension of growth. The industry has also already ramped up considerable research into radical new possibilities and materials (such as carbon nano-tubes for example) a lot of the challenges for moving towards for example using electron spin as the holder of information and being able to go towards an architecture that can shuttle individual electrons. I don't get the sense that the industry is going to hit any fundamental physical Law limits on the further miniaturization and speeding up of hardware any time soon. Perhaps with traditional chip architectures limits may not be that much further off maybe ten years perhaps -- and AMD for example is having problems scaling down to 20nm (though Intel is churning them out at 22nm scale), but this applies for traditional chip architectures on silicon. What about graphene? DNA/other molecular computers? From what I understand, traditional chip technology is getting close to a point where any further miniaturisation will increase heat to an unsustainable level. I hope you're right about new approaches, but we don't know if they will materialise. Moore's law is just an empirical observation, not a scientific law... There remains a huge amount of room at the bottom to continue to scale down and I don't see any fundamental reasons why clever technologists with increasingly sophisticated micro and nano scale manufacturing chops cannot continue to devise clever ways to exploit various phenomena that can be controlled, switched and stored in one state or the other at those smaller and smaller scales and to grow in the orthogonal dimension of 3-D as well. In fact as fewer and fewer electrons get squeezed through gates (smaller and smaller scales) less and less power is needed and less and less waste heat is generated. In fact the human brain is a clear example of just how much room there is yet to go at the bottom... we have 20 watt multi-core machines with 86 billion processors running a one hundred trillion connection network all crackling away in a tightly folded case about the size of a grapefruit. How many generations of Moore's Law will it take to reach that kind of density? Right, but synapse triggering is also horribly slow when compared to transistors, and the human brains has no need for a central synch signal. It's a totally different approach: slow, unsynchronised and massively parallel. Imagine what we could do by combining the speed of semiconductors with the decentralised architecture of the brain! Telmo. -Chris -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
Re: Deep Blue vs The Tianhe-2 Supercomputer
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Telmo -- Another crucial difference between the brain and current computer architectures is the huge difference between the two in terms of signal to noise ratios. The brain is a crackling and very noisy place and is in this way is very unlike silicon chips where the signal is very clear (at a large energy cost incidentally) We may experience our minds as a splendid inner silence I wish! :) -- well maybe not all of us -- but the actual brain environment is highly chatty and is cascading with signals talking over each other more like a lively cocktail party really. Computer architecture is the exact opposite in this regard, and this suggests that the two architectures must be very different and work on different principles or at least in very different manners. Completely agree. The brain seems to excel at somehow -- through what sleight of hand? -- pulling beautifully ordered reifications of sensorial perception streams (like the illusion we create of the three dimensional world arrayed in a stable manner around our point of perception that does not experience sudden gaps but instead persists in majestic stability even as the sensorial stream shuts down -- for example whenever we move our eyeballs from one spot to another) And it does so in the midst of a veritable cacophony of countless signals that would totally overwhelm any software we have and bring any attempt we could possibly cobble together to try to manage it or make sense of it to a grinding overloaded crashing halt. This is a fundamental architectural difference between how logic is built up, layer by layer, on a computer and how the brain does things. They are profoundly different approaches to how things are done. Undoubtably. And it might not be a coincidence that these architectural differences are correlated with very distinct sets of strengths and weaknesses in terms of problem solving. Telmo. -Chris -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 2:00 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Deep Blue vs The Tianhe-2 Supercomputer On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: As I tried to comment in the other thread concerning chess: it's not just about power, it's also about quality of coding. Just one fresh opening, a novel variation or line in the mid game, a bug in the code, one position falsely assessed, and all computing power in the universe will still lose that game. To generalize this to all problems seems a bit quick. PGC I agree with the sentiment. Chess is a very narrow case though: the min-max algorithm plus a brutal amount of computing power is surely going to beat a human. The min-max algorithm is so simple that it is not that hard to implement with zero defects. The issue, though, is the following: we currently only know how to beat top human players with brutal computational power. The part of the human brain devoted to playing chess (even in a Grand Master) cannot possibly match what we already do artificially in terms of computing power. It must use smarter algorithms. Our brain cannot possibly hold the gigantic search trees involved in min-max, it must be doing something much more clever. We don't know what that is. We are now approaching a point where we can have supercomputers with the same estimated computational power of a human brain, but we are very far from replicating its capabilities. There's even a lot of stuff insects do that we are not close to matching. I dare even say bacteria. There are many fundamental algorithms yet to be discovered, that's for sure. Also, Moore's law is bound to hit a physical limit. It cannot be that far now. It's already fishy, since it's being driven mostly by multicore architectures. Moving from the sequential to the parallel world is far from trivial in terms of software engineering. The brain is massively parallel and asynchronous, and we are still very bad with that sort of stuff. Maybe that's precisely where the missing good stuff lies. Incidentally, Richard Feynman was involved with a startup that tried to create a new type of highly parallel computer. Here's an interesting read about it: http://longnow.org/essays/richard-feynman-connection-machine/ I love this part: We were arguing about what the name of the company should be when Richard walked in, saluted, and said, Richard Feynman reporting for duty. OK, boss, what's my assignment? The assembled group of not-quite-graduated MIT students was astounded. After a hurried private discussion (I don't know, you hired him...), we informed Richard that his assignment would be to advise on the application of parallel processing to scientific problems. That sounds like a bunch of
Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 08:34:02PM -0700, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:58 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test? Every human in existence requires external enabling hardware. Yes but humans are not universal computing machines, if indeed we are machines. Do we know enough about how our brains work and are structured to ... If a human requires a substrate which it can manipulate in order to perform its logical operations then a universal human is impossible because the substrate would necessarily be outside and foundational to its domain. Agreed. Humans are exceedingly far from being universal. Our very sense of self precludes universality. I may be missing your point entirely, but humans are universal machines in the sense that they can emulate perfectly any Turing machine, given enough time, patience, paper and pens for external storage. They may well be capable of far more than a universal Turing machine, but they're not less. I don't see what the sense of self has to do with it... -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
I don't see what the sense of self has to do with it... Hi Russell ~ In the sense, that by having a sense of self we have inescapably already separated our self from any possibility of seeing from the perspective of a universal point of view... the all that is and can be. Naturally this is a matter of perception and we all exist within the set of all that can be and is, but we perceive ourselves as having identity, and identity is per force a perspective on something larger in which the identified thing operates and belongs to, but from which it considers itself separate and distinct. I use it in the sense -- so many ways to use that word; hope it all does not come out as nonsense :) -- in the sense of how our own perceptual lock-in, to viewing the universe from the perspective of our own beings, is a fundamental limitation we have by nature of being. It is very hard to get beyond ourselves to put every event and how we interpret the streams from our senses out of becoming bound up with this self-referential optic that we superimpose on the world impinging on us. I do not see how a universal being could experience itself as having a self -- at least in the limited way we experience it. I am a believer in the importance of our self-centered beings for what that's worth and clearly at our stage in evolution we require it -- not selfish (hopefully), but centered within a self, a self who perceives and who at least believes they are imbued with free will. But this is way off topic and I am wandering into what could easily lead off into a whole other area that can be an endless discussion. I may be missing your point entirely, but humans are universal machines in the sense that they can emulate perfectly any Turing machine, given enough time, patience, paper and pens for external storage. True and perhaps in theory possible, but in practice as soon as we begin to deal with ever increasing volumes of external systems, especially ones that respond to events and pressures to change, from multiple arrays of sources, it grows geometrically harder to synchronize and manage and to keep stuff like reentrancy from happening. So in practice I think this breaks down at some stochastic threshold and the problem mushrooms out of control as the bookkeeping effort required begins to overtake the value of each increment of extra external inclusion into the set of things that need to be kept tracked of and taken account of. Cheers, -Chris -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 4:04 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test? On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 08:34:02PM -0700, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:58 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test? Every human in existence requires external enabling hardware. Yes but humans are not universal computing machines, if indeed we are machines. Do we know enough about how our brains work and are structured to ... If a human requires a substrate which it can manipulate in order to perform its logical operations then a universal human is impossible because the substrate would necessarily be outside and foundational to its domain. Agreed. Humans are exceedingly far from being universal. Our very sense of self precludes universality. I may be missing your point entirely, but humans are universal machines in the sense that they can emulate perfectly any Turing machine, given enough time, patience, paper and pens for external storage. They may well be capable of far more than a universal Turing machine, but they're not less. I don't see what the sense of self has to do with it... -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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
RE: Deep Blue vs The Tianhe-2 Supercomputer
-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 3:33 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Deep Blue vs The Tianhe-2 Supercomputer On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Telmo -- Another crucial difference between the brain and current computer architectures is the huge difference between the two in terms of signal to noise ratios. The brain is a crackling and very noisy place and is in this way is very unlike silicon chips where the signal is very clear (at a large energy cost incidentally) We may experience our minds as a splendid inner silence I wish! :) You and I both :) -- well maybe not all of us -- but the actual brain environment is highly chatty and is cascading with signals talking over each other more like a lively cocktail party really. Computer architecture is the exact opposite in this regard, and this suggests that the two architectures must be very different and work on different principles or at least in very different manners. Completely agree. The brain seems to excel at somehow -- through what sleight of hand? -- pulling beautifully ordered reifications of sensorial perception streams (like the illusion we create of the three dimensional world arrayed in a stable manner around our point of perception that does not experience sudden gaps but instead persists in majestic stability even as the sensorial stream shuts down -- for example whenever we move our eyeballs from one spot to another) And it does so in the midst of a veritable cacophony of countless signals that would totally overwhelm any software we have and bring any attempt we could possibly cobble together to try to manage it or make sense of it to a grinding overloaded crashing halt. This is a fundamental architectural difference between how logic is built up, layer by layer, on a computer and how the brain does things. They are profoundly different approaches to how things are done. Undoubtably. And it might not be a coincidence that these architectural differences are correlated with very distinct sets of strengths and weaknesses in terms of problem solving. Precisely! And also why, it is perhaps misguided to speak of it in such a binary manner -- not to imply you were at all :) The range of all possibilities is vaster than: AI or not AI -- or, more succinctly just dropping the artificial part for the moment and re-stating it as Intelligence / not Intelligence. Most probably there are many ways of intelligence and the intelligence that we are imbued with is not the end all and be all of all possible forms intelligence (in the abstract) could take. I certainly hope it isn't; what an utterly mundane universe that would make. Even just trying to nail down a definition of what intelligence is -- especially if we attempt to abstract the definition so as not to limit it overly to our own peculiar evolutionary path. (peculiar not in the sense of being bad or having a negative connation, but of being particular). I can't speak for others, but it is really hard for me whenever I try to grasp this particular slippery eel and try to fix it with some definite form or model perhaps. Even within our own minds we have multiple types of intelligence operating and not all of them are symbolic/verbal forms. Sometimes it seems to me, as if it is a somewhat ad hoc tool set that we hang this concept on and expect things to manifest similarly in other beings. Our sense of what intelligence is and is not, has to have been influenced and is to a large degree informed by the optic of our own evolutionary end point (where we are at now... not in the sense of forever remaining there) and whenever we speak of intelligence in an abstract manner we need to keep this in mind. Cheers, -Chris Telmo. -Chris -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 2:00 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Deep Blue vs The Tianhe-2 Supercomputer On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: As I tried to comment in the other thread concerning chess: it's not just about power, it's also about quality of coding. Just one fresh opening, a novel variation or line in the mid game, a bug in the code, one position falsely assessed, and all computing power in the universe will still lose that game. To generalize this to all problems seems a bit quick. PGC I agree with the sentiment. Chess is a very narrow case though: the min-max algorithm plus a brutal amount of computing power is surely going to beat a human. The min-max algorithm is so simple that it is not that hard to implement with zero defects. The issue, though, is the
