[ExI] AI Motivation revisited

Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Wed Jun 29 17:00:38 UTC 2011

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 June 2011 03:40, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The computational power required to defeat Kasparov in '96 is many
>> orders of magnitude above the computational power required to play
>> chess at that same level now.
> Mmhhh. What defeated Kasparov was a program, not a computer. The
> computer merely offered sufficient power to choose moves in the time
> required.
> If we free Kasparov's opponent from tournament rules regarding time,
> and we execute this very program on *anything*, including a Chinese
> Room or a Turing machine or a Babbage engine or 30.000 slaves playing
> logic circuits in a plain, the end result would not change.

Stefano, you are missing the main point, which is that algorithms
continue to improve even after problems are solved. These improvements
often mean that the algorithms can run on less capable hardware, due
to optimization. I was trying to say no more, nor less than this.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list