Luke_A_Somers comments on The first AI probably won't be very smart - Less Wrong

-2 Post author: jpaulson 16 January 2014 01:37AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (64)
Tags: intelligence ai

Comments (64)

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

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 17 January 2014 01:55:26PM 0 points [-]

I think I remember one particular prominent intellectual who, decades ago, essentially declared that when chess could be played better by a computer than a human, the problem of AI would be solved.

Hofstadter, in Godel, Escher, Bach?

What? That runs contrary to, like, the last third of the book. Where in the book would one find this claim?

Comment author: gwern 18 January 2014 04:37:45AM 2 points [-]

Previous discussion: http://lesswrong.com/lw/hp5/after_critical_event_w_happens_they_still_wont/95ow

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 19 January 2014 01:22:11AM 0 points [-]

I see. He got so focused on the power of strange loops that he forgot that you can do a whole lot without them.

Comment author: jpaulson 18 January 2014 04:29:24AM 1 point [-]

I don't have a copy handy. I distinctly remember this claim, though. This purports to be a quote from near the end of the book.

4 "Will there be chess programs that can beat anyone?" "No. There may be programs which can beat anyone at chess, but they will not be exclusively chess players." (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-decision-tree/201111/how-much-progress-has-artificial-intelligence-made)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit