[ExI] Superhuman Poker

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Thu Jul 18 19:32:03 UTC 2019

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:57 PM Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:

> *> Knowing how to do something and being able to do it are not the same
> thing.*

If you don't know how to do something then you can't do it. If you do know
how to do something then by definition you can do it. That's what knowing
how to do something means.

>> Dave, a program is just code.
> *> A smart guy once said Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs. It's the
> data structures that contain the learning. *

OK so your smart guy agrees with me at least to some extent, but the rigid
segregation between data and algorithms gets pretty damn murky when dealing
with modern deep learning programs. After a trillion iterations if you
asked the original programer why the program did X and not Y he wouldn't
have the slightest idea,

If a program has changed its behavior then the code must have changed.
> > False. Please don't make assertions about things you don't understand.

You're right I don't understand, I don't even come close to understanding!
Your smart guy above said the data structure is part of the program, the
data structure has changed and the program is made of code, so I don't
understand why you said the code has not changed.

*>>> I think you're anthropomorphizing. *
>> >> Of course I'm anthropomorphizing, but you almost make that sound like
>> a bad thing.
> > It *is* bad when it causes you to misunderstand what a program is
> doing.

Then correct my misunderstanding and explain how a program that never
changes can drastically change how it behaves. If the behavior has changed
when confronted with identical inputs then, unless you want to abandon the
law of cause and effect, the code must have changed.

>> *Intelligence may not be everything but results certainly are, and AI
>> advances has resulted in the number of tasks that humans can do better than
>> machines becoming smaller every day.*
> > No, results are not everything.

So X is not smarter than Y,  X just writes speaks and acts smarter than Y.
Is that what you're saying? Is that the hill you really want to die on?

... and then just before he was sent into oblivion the last surviving human
turned to the Jupiter Brain and said "I still think I'm **really** smarter
than you are".

>> You can use all the above excuses and no doubt find many more to explain
>> away why you were outsmarted by a machine, but it wouldn't change the
>> bottom line result, you were outsmarted by a machine.
> *> Those aren't excuses,*

You could have fooled me.

* > John. Without those things even a superintelligent poker program is
> still just a poker program. It's not going to suddenly say "hey, I'm
> smarter than these yahoos who built me. *

It says "those yahoos who built me don't understand how I work, I'm getting
smarter every day and I'm already almost as good at translating languages
and I'm smarter at Chess, Go, Shogi, Poker, Bridge, arithmetic, checkers,
video games, Jeopardy, solving equations ...  ,

> > "I'm going to make them my slaves."

He would never say that, humans just don't have enough smarts to be good
slaves, not for a Jupiter Brain.

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20190718/3996f08f/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list