Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on After critical event W happens, they still won't believe you - Less Wrong

37 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 13 June 2013 09:59PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (104)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 June 2013 02:09:09PM 6 points [-]

I notice I am confused (he said politely). Kasparov is not stupid and modern chess programs on a home computer e.g. Deep Rybka 3.0 are overwhelmingly more powerful than Deep Blue, there should be no reasonable way for anyone to delude themselves that computer chess programs are not crushingly superior to unassisted humans.

Comment author: Vaniver 14 June 2013 03:49:35PM *  4 points [-]

I seem to recall that there was some impoliteness surrounding the Deep Blue game specifically- basically, it knew every move Kasparov had ever played, but Kasparov was not given any record of Deep Blue's plays to learn how it played (like he would have had against any other human chessplayer who moved up the chess ranks); that's the charitable interpretation of what Kasparov meant by the victory being fishy. (This hypothetical Kasparov would want to play many matches against Deep Rybka 3.0 before the official matches that determine which of them is better- but would probably anticipate losing at the end of his training anyway.)

Comment author: [deleted] 16 June 2013 05:27:46PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: fezziwig 14 June 2013 03:44:02PM 2 points [-]

Nowadays, sure, but Deep Blue beat Kasparov in 1997. Kasparov has always claimed that IBM cheated during the rematch, supplementing Deep Blue with human insight. As far as I know there's no evidence that he's right, but he's suspected very consistently for the last 15 years.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 15 June 2013 07:12:56PM *  -2 points [-]

Request that Thomas be treated as a troll. I'm not sure if he's actually a troll, but he's close enough.

Edit: This isn't primarily based on the above comment, it's primarily based on this comment.

Comment author: Kawoomba 15 June 2013 07:44:33PM *  2 points [-]

Actually, starting at and around the 30 minute mark in this video -- an interview with Kasparov done in Maribor, a couple months ago, no less -- he whines about the whole human versus machine match up a lot, suggests new winning conditions (human just has to win one game of a series to show superiority, since the "endurance" aspect is the machine "cheating") which would redefine the result etcetera.

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 15 June 2013 07:48:09PM 1 point [-]

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

I looked this up but I don't understand what it was intended to mean in this context.

Comment author: Kawoomba 15 June 2013 07:59:53PM *  4 points [-]

"Shame on him, who suspects illicit motivation" is given as one of the many possible translations. Don't take the "shame" part too literally, but there is some irony in pointing out someone as a troll when the one comment you use for doing so turns out to be true, and interesting to boot (Kasparov engaging in bad-loser-let's-warp-the-facts behavior).

I'm not taking a stance on the issue whether Thomas is or isn't a troll, you were probably mostly looking for a good-seeming place to share your opinion about him.

(Like spotting a cereal thief in a supermarket, day after day. Then when you finally hold him and call the authorities, it turns out that single time he didn't steal.)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 June 2013 09:00:24PM 0 points [-]

Hm. A brief glance at Thomas's profile makes it hard to be sure. I will be on the lookout.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 June 2013 05:31:27PM 0 points [-]

So why did you write that here rather than there?

Ah, right, the karma toll.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 16 June 2013 06:57:18PM 2 points [-]

I thought it would be more likely to be seen by Eliezer if I responded to Eliezer.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 15 June 2013 06:45:06PM -1 points [-]
Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 June 2013 06:58:24PM 5 points [-]

Those were matches with Rybka handicapped (an odds match is a handicapped match) and Deep Rybka 3.0 is a substantial improvement over Rybka. The referenced "Zappa" which played Rybka evenly is another computer program. Read the reference carefully.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 16 June 2013 04:23:13AM 2 points [-]

Thanks.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 June 2013 05:29:58PM 0 points [-]

Well, for that matter he also believes this stuff.