Did you try GNU Go? That should be hard enough for most beginners.
Side-note, Wikipedia has a nice article on computer-Go; it's gotten a lot better, but still... with all the discussions on AGI on LW, it's sobering to see how difficult even a constrained well-understood domain like Go can be dealt with using today's methods.
Did you try GNU Go? That should be hard enough for most beginners.
The problem with GNUgo is that it teaches a style that would not be effective in beating humans. Generally, you have to build up moderately difficult situations, where you have a deep sequence of forcing moves. These kind of deep but simple to prune trees are very easily read by humans, but GNUgo sucks at them, especially if they are on the interaction boundary of bigger fights.
Still it can be valuable learning tool, but one will learn a different skill set to playing with humans.
Let me advertise my absolute favorite: an obscure Hungarian writer called Geza Csath. He was a doctor and journalist at beginning of the 20th century and he wrote the most beautiful and objective stories on self-deception and other human weaknesses. Highly accurately, without moralizing or romanticizing.
I've only read the originals, but I hope the translation is not too bad. (Unfortunately, in English, it is available only used: http://www.amazon.com/Magicians-Garden-Other-Stories/dp/0231047320/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281569193&sr=1-4
A good book I am reading currently is The Art Of Choosing by Sheena Iyengar.
I think it is mostly hopeless trying to teach rationality to most people.
For example, both of my parents studied Math in university and still have a very firm grip of the fundamentals.
I just got a phone call yesterday from my father in Germany saying: "We saw in the news, that a German tourist couple got killed in a shooting in San Francisco. Will you avoid going out after dark?" When I tried to explain that I won't update my risk estimates based on any such singular event, he seemed to listen to and understand formally what I said. Anyhow, he was completely unimpressed, finishing the conversation in an even more worried tone: "I see, but you will take care, won't you?"
The silly thing is that they present it as a timeline, but it is in fact an incoherent list of technological breakthroughs without really considering the interaction between them. It's like they had a nano writer, a climate writer and so on, all of them wrote a timeline, and the editors merged them in the end.
He he, poor WW2 veterans miss the deadline by just one year:
2044 - The last veterans of WW2 are passing away
2045 - Humans are becoming intimately merged with machines
An object lesson in how not to think about the future:
http://www.futuretimeline.net/
(from Pharyngula)
2031 – Web 4.0 is transforming the Internet landscape
Could be funny, if it was a joke... :(
Hm, isn't he saying that unattractive people claim they value attributes other than physical attractiveness when selecting a mate? If that's what you're referring to, hilarious. If not, speak more slowly next time. : )
That's true.
But the parallel was a bit more specific: "Good sense of humor" (which he concretely brought up as the most typical example) is an attribute one can easily claim to have as it is impossible to measure.
: )
More like: I'm not stunning, just ordinary good looking, and I also have a great sense of humor.
I didn't say I was stupid, just not a genius.
You missed my point. (Which you would not have, if you had read The Upside of Irrationality by Dan Ariely, an excellent book.)
I consider myself in the middle of the bell curve when it comes to intelligence. I'm average. I am, however, more rational than some very smart people I know..
This sounds like "I am not very good looking, but have a great sense of humor." ;)
Don't read too much into my fusion analogy; you're right that cryonics is different than fusion.
... and different to almost any other unproven technology (for the exact same reason).
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Did Russell ever provide an argument in favor of this assertion? I am interested in hearing it.
Why? Do you agree with him? :)