Just because your facts are right doesn't mean your argument is right .... Keep that in mind when you try to use random statistics or links just because your ight doesn't mean you aren't also wrong (you can think ai is fake) even though it isn't it's just computer programming that's made to learn (from earlier this is off topic)
Einstein, Buddha, and Elon Musk on Chess as a Waste of Time
Sort:
Agreed if you want to know why chess is perfect for ai
1.computing power and endless calculations
2.chess is 100% calculation and pattern recognition huh isn't that what ai does? Run patterns...
3.it can show the advancement in how fast or efficient computers are(not really ) the more efficient the computer and ai the better the chess
Written by a true 800 rated player...
@Grunts2018 depends hehehe
May 4, 2024
0
#166
No one asked me but historically chess has not used the models that are nowadays associated with AI (neural networks, transformers, SVM, Random forest, etc.). So there is not much of a relation between chess and technologies like self-driving cars or chat-gpt (to my knowledge self-driving cars use semantic segmentation with neural networks and chat-gpt uses transformers).
Deep blue, the computer that beat kasparov was an expert system, which means it was basically a library of GM games that the computer could consult to asess the best move, along with some hard-coded instructions added by humans to indicate the system what to do in certain specific situations. It did not use learning and training in the sense that we apply it today in AI. In part, predominant use of expert systems was the fault of characters like Marvin Minsky who opposed models like the perceptron (basically a 1 neuron model). This time period where AI did not evolve a lot is known as the AI winter.
https://analyticsindiamag.com/why-did-ai-pioneer-marvin-minsky-oppose-neural-networks/
Stockfish to my knowledge does not use neural networks either!, it basically searches a tree of moves in a very smart way: cutting some of the branches by applying pre-defined knowledge and asessing which of the branches leads to a bigger advantage with a min-max algorithm.
long_quach wrote:
VerifiedChessYarshe wrote:
l [I know since TRS-80, in 1980. Chess was programmed on vacuum tubes. Chess gave rise to computer programming.
-Chess never gave the opportunity to develop AIs like we had now, what evidence will you base on ? AI not only was used in chess but other stuffs that is even better.
Ok, stupid. I"m going to teach you one last time.
Chess gave rise to artificial intelligence since computers were made of vacuum tubes. Chess is the model for artificial intelligence because it is an artificially closed world with all the rules known.
I say it again. Chess is the model for artificial intelligence since computers were made out of vacuum tubes.
Hey buddy, let me point out that artificial intelligence was created by humans, humans made it to be the best, and it was the best out of all the things from playing chess to serving food to customers. Your points about chess being a model is obviously NOT true but it never gave chess anything to start with. Who gave the Deep Blue chess engine the intelligence to defeat Kasparov?
long_quach wrote:
walupxd wrote:
No one asked me but historically chess has not used the models that are nowadays associated with AI
Firstly, AI is short for Artificial Intelligence.
I said, the guy who coined "AI" is a chess programmer himself.
If chess is not the model for AI, what is?
The model for AI is for humans, without the human codes AI will never dominate chess like today. Im sorry that the guy you just used to attack my friends are indirect proofs and that he is just a singular programmer, its his opinion and there is nothing to do with it, there are more people even better than him that has mixed opinions, so its undefined.
long_quach wrote:
VerifiedChessYarshe wrote:
VerifiedChessYarshe
There hasnt been really any record of a chess player doing an iq test and actually smart. All iq assumptions are assumptions not real iq and that scientists are trying to make an image that "Kasparov is the smartest" while it has never been proven with a rightful iq test. [There is no such thing as "smart" in the artificial intelligence sense, in the sense of having the most computing power. What we have are experts in a field. An expert in one field is not an expert in another.field. Kasparov doesn't know physics. Einstein doesn't know chess.]
AIs have intelligence. Computing power doesnt mean the AI will be smart, Stockfish even though have a strong computing power can still lose to Torch. Also if you said AIs have no intelligence then you proved my point that chess is a waste of time as AIs' intelligence are far beyond than our human minds and thank you for proving it that AIs have no intelligence = no intelligent improvements to your brain.
I said there is no such thing thing as a smart person (I.e. high IQ) in the artificial intelligence sense (manner).
I did not say "AI have no intelligence".
Stockfish and Torch are software. They have no computing power. The computing power comes from the hardware. The memory capacity and speed of the computer.
Your point makes 0 sense honestly.
Humans have a kind of intelligence that is so different to AIs that you cant compare them, your points makes it like human has an intelligence that has 0 meaning but for me its non existence.
@Long_quach your the owner of all stupidity of this forum and maybe a fraction of this website, if i proved you wrong countless times why wont you listen?
long_quach wrote:
VerifiedChessYarshe wrote:
long_quach wrote:
walupxd wrote:
No one asked me but historically chess has not used the models that are nowadays associated with AI
Firstly, AI is short for Artificial Intelligence.
I said, the guy who coined "AI" is a chess programmer himself.
If chess is not the model for AI, what is?
The model for AI is for humans, without the human codes AI will never dominate chess like today. Im sorry that the guy you just used to attack my friends are indirect proofs and that he is just a singular programmer, its his opinion and there is nothing to do with it, there are more people even better than him that has mixed opinions, so its undefined.
You are too stupid to even understand the question.
The model for AI is for human . . .
What the hell is that?
What is model for AI?
What the model for X?
The model for X is for Y.
What the hell is that?
What is the model for AI?
Who created AI? Humans. Thats why if AI wants to develop, they will have to learn Human inventions.
What the heck the model of X is Y, its a xy plane and not Y, Y is just a new object that is used in maths, it has the same way how X works except is different in directions. The xy-plane is the reason why X in a xy-plane exists.
hi
long_quach wrote:
long_quach wrote:
long_quach wrote:
What is the model for AI?
Let me explain the question to you.
What is the task that AI will take on to demonstrate its effectiveness?
Follow me. I will answer my own question. Then you follow the way.
What is the model for robotics?
What is the task that demonstrates the effectiveness of a robotic system?
Ping-pong is the model. Ping-pong is the task.
It shows off the camera system. The mechanical controls. The playing program. Its command of physics. Its imitation abilities, etc . . .
Ping-pong is the model. Ping-pong is the task.
What is the model, i.e. the task that will showcase Artificial Intelligence?
Let me ask you a question,
If humans never shown the robot the ping pong sport, how would it know how to play it? Oh wait it didnt even existed back then.
Robots are based on scripts, thats the answer, it will never understand a language like "See a ball? Knock it down to the table". Humans are the model of the first ever artificial intelligence. Please understand. Who created AIs?
Humans and AIs are seemingly the same. Humans built it. Humans make it to talk, to know when to use the equipment to knock the ping pong ball down and when to attack aggressively. Humans are the reason why AIs existed. Humans created these sports, so its a human model.
Now thats your answer. Please dont complain.
long_quach wrote:
@VerifiedChessYarshe
Nobody is denying that humans created AI, stupid.
The question is: What is the first task AI took on to demonstrate its promise?
Calling others stupid can result in a mute, or even a ban if repeated multiple times. Bet you didn't know that.
long_quach wrote:
@VerifiedChessYarshe
Forget my (and other people's) poetic way of speaking.
What is the model for AI?
What is the task for AI to do to show off its promise, when it was first conceived?
AI has proved so many times that its very unique and it cant be compared to an average human. I dont need to tell you.
long_quach wrote:
JavaScript781 wrote:
long_quach wrote:
@VerifiedChessYarshe
Nobody is denying that humans created AI, stupid.
The question is: What is the first task AI took on to demonstrate its promise?
Calling others stupid can result in a mute, or even a ban if repeated multiple times. Bet you didn't know that.
What is the penalty for being stupid?
Not a joke. A serious question.
There is no penalty for being stupid, however calling someone stupid no matter how stupid they are is rude so it deserves a penalty.
long_quach wrote:
@VerifiedChessYarshe
What is the first task to try AI out?
Depends.
How can i understand your personality if i cant get a hold of it?
long_quach wrote:
VerifiedChessYarshe wrote:
long_quach wrote:
JavaScript781 wrote:
long_quach wrote:
@VerifiedChessYarshe
Nobody is denying that humans created AI, stupid.
The question is: What is the first task AI took on to demonstrate its promise?
Calling others stupid can result in a mute, or even a ban if repeated multiple times. Bet you didn't know that.
What is the penalty for being stupid?
Not a joke. A serious question.
There is no penalty for being stupid, however calling someone stupid no matter how stupid they are nits rude so it deserves a penalty.
There should be, because there is a cost.
10 stupid people in a room, 1 smart person.
10 stupid people should shut up and let the smart person speak.
Is it rude to tell the truth?
"A farmer bought a well from a rich smart man. The farmer who lived a simple life (low iq needed) go to the well to get water, the rich man said "I only sold you the well, not the water". The farmer was sad and try his luck in court, the judge asks: "Why wont you let the farmer get the water from the well?" the man said: Because i only sold him the well not the water" the judge smiled: "If you sold the well to the farmer then you have no right to keep your water in the well...."
The rich smart man lost the case."
Even if your smart you will pay the price for harming the people who were unlucky and not smart.
long_quach wrote:
VerifiedChessYarshe wrote:
There is no penalty for being stupid,
Let me demonstrate my superior intelligence.
Being stupid is its own penalty.
Let me demonstrate more:
Being stupid isnt because of someone's own actions, its because a tutor didnt teach them well and led them harming the society. There are people who also got "Down" disorder. But they are still apart of our wonderful human race. I will let you know that anyone you argued with are not stupid and only you are the one.
But dont worry, dont speak too soon, soon artificial intelligence will conquer earth and our understandings about space, our intelligence will be improved significantly. Our lifestyles will improve as well.
I will repeat that your tutor (whoever the heck taught you) didnt taught you well and you're being stubborn as your personality.
@long_quach I was defending someone else not myself i don't care either or not you call me stupid since you can't even argue correctly ever thought that I actually care about other people's feelings than my own?
Ps i was defending @verifiedchessyarshe