Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Post-Crash Index-Moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Horgad who wrote (85414)	2/12/2013 10:57:28 AM
From: TH	Respond to of 119361

H, I agree with your thoughts. It is just there are better people to address this question, as my knowledge is very limited. I do know that Kasparov thinks the Deep Blue team cheated. And he has some legitimate reasons to hold that position. GT TH

To: Horgad who wrote (85414)	2/12/2013 10:57:46 AM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 119361

And now for a bit of news that you (and I) will almost certainly not understand: scientists at the University of Washington say they’ve devised a test that may prove whether or not the lives we live are actually just one giant computer simulation created by our future descendants. psmag.com Sometimes I feel bad for whoever got stuck with me as their avatar in the simulation

To: Horgad who wrote (85414)	2/12/2013 12:17:03 PM
From: Giordano Bruno	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 119361

Imagine the capabilities of a very old, very advanced computer. repubblica.it Then run the odds of the 2004 tsunami happening on Christmas day. Odds can take coincidence out of the picture.

To: Horgad who wrote (85414)	2/13/2013 12:12:19 PM
From: Joseph Silent	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 119361

This may very well be ......... who can say what the future holds? There is, however, a very important step missing in that picture you have painted. Yes. I can write a program that outsmarts the world's best human chess-player. That is because a human cannot hold the entire subtree that a particular move generates, and must work with limited memory intuition, knowledge and creativity. A computer simply holds all required possibilities for that move,and makes choices in a way that guarantees optimality. It would be like asking a human to run faster than a car. We have unbounded creativity with organic limitations. Computers have zero (or bounded? Yet to be shown!) creativity and no organic limitations. The problem is here: how does a computer learn how to solve a new problem? We are very far (if there is a distance involved) from a computer learning how to play tic-tac-toe. If we get there we can start to think about how it might learn to play chess or learn to solve useful problems. We are very far from those spaces now, even though the ability of technology to surround us with gizmos clouds our perception of what is possible. :)