Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 28th May 2012 03:53 UTC
Permalink for comment 519659
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
It brings up another question: why on earth would we consider an AI to be insufficient if it doesn't match a human? They exceed humans in many other tasks already.
I think people go even further - they tend to expect from an AI to beat exceptional human, maybe even "the best" one...
...while AI is really more about being better than average human, inexpensively mass-producing and distributing its expertise. That is sufficient to bring improvement to the world.
Sure, AI defeated chess world champion only in 1997 - but I suspect it could beat most humans quite a bit before that.
(heck, I remember that for me, then a small kid, some C64 chess program was a challenge
Edited 2012-05-28 06:09 UTC