[ExI] Oxford scientists edge toward quantum PC with 10b qubits.

Dave Sill sparge at gmail.com
Fri Jan 28 21:17:18 UTC 2011


On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to toss out a bit for contemplation:
>
> How do we know that there is not some similar trick, whereby a system could
> do this and still not be what we would consider intelligent?
>

If it's a trick, then the system won't be able to learn and play other games
of similar complexity. If there's a "trick" that lets a system learn and
play all such simple games, then it's not really a trick because it's
generally applicable.

Or rather, what kinds of tricks might allow for such a thing?
>
> Can't think of any?  Neither could those who declared that chess
> grandmastery
> required true intelligence...but they might not have known of the types of
> AI
> tricks that were to come.
>

Like Richard I don't think anyone really thought chess required true
intelligence. Some people might have thought that we'd never have the
hardware to allow looking 20 moves ahead, but that was obviously
shortsighted.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110128/22ffc4cf/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list