[ExI] Whistling past the graveyard

[William Flynn Wallace]

Adrian - Unless you want to claim that we are all automatons - including
and especially yourself - with no original thoughts ever.  What it did is
at least as original to itself as any human go player has done.
I am still not convinced.  Just because they did not expect the specifics
they got, did they not expect that?  They programmed in the flexibility,
the ability to learn etc.  So the credit still goes to the programmers,
no?  In other words, did they not predict that the outcomes would be
unpredictable and depended on the AI's experience?  Just as with people.
The only difference being that you can start with two identical AIs but you
cannot with people.

bill w

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 6, 2016 11:15 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >  Isn't that what the programmers expected it to do?
>
> No.
>
> Or more specifically: they expected it to be good at go.  They did not
> expect several of the specifics that it came up with.
>
> That may seem a trivial, semantic difference, but it's really not.  It is
> the core of the distinction between what your teachers (programmers) taught
> you (programmed you with), and what you have done with that knowledge.
>
> These specifics, which the programmers did not have, can then be analyzed
> or otherwise used to develop more knowledge.
>
> Unless you want to claim that we are all automatons - including and
> especially yourself - with no original thoughts ever.  What it did is at
> least as original to itself as any human go player has done.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160406/474f4564/attachment.html>