= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on The Curve of Capability - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (264)
Snagged from a thread that's gone under a fold:
One thing people do that neither chimps nor computers have managed is invent symbolic logic.[1]
Maybe it's in the sequences somewhere, but what does it take to notice gaps in one's models and oddities that might be systematizable?
[1] If I'm going to avoid P=0, then I'll say it's slightly more likely that chimps have done significant intellectual invention than computers.
The quote is wrong.
My apologies-- I should have caught that-- the quote didn't seem to be an accurate match for what you said, but I was having too much fun bouncing off the misquote to track that aspect.
Link to the replied-to comment.
Also lipstick. Don't forget lipstick.
(Your comment isn't very clear, so I'm not sure what you intended to say by the statement I cited.)
Thanks for posting the link.
My point was that some of the most interesting things people do aren't obviously algorithmic.
It's impressive that programs beat chess grandmasters. It would be more impressive (and more evidential that self-optimization is possible) if a computer could invent a popular game.
What is this statement intended as an argument for?
(What do you mean by "algorithmic"? It's a human category, just like "interesting". )