/sci/ - Science & Math

A chess ai can beat any human handily for decades now yet we still care more about grandmasters than chess AIs.

>>11182498
It is time to start enhacing human capabilities. I for one would advocate por a mixture of genetic and technological enhancements

>>11182498
Extract the fundamental meaning from things
Take up machine learning and make an AI which kicks the ass of the AI that beat your ass
Make more interesting games

One big problem with Go and Chess AI is that they use exhaustive tree. It's not super intelligent to win this way, it's a bit like being able to see the future.

They had this problem with starcraft AI, but realized that it was cheating for the computer to not use realistic input. I think they made some versions with human management speed and it certainly made a more interesting challenge to the AI, requiring more fundamental understanding of the game

I like explainable AI as a next step. Have these advanced artificial intelligence actually extract useful information from what it learned. Let's create a feedback loop between humans and AI instead of just letting them do things for us

>>11182537
Shut the fuck up, hanzer.

We really have no choice. It’s a pandora’s box that has already been opened. All we can do now is join/adapt or die.

>>11182525
Which doesn’t actually make sense...

>>11182570
>>11182525
>>11182498
I don't really understand why it matters

There is literally only 1 best person at anything. Should everyone else just literally not enjoy whatever they are doing

>>11182498
>meaning away from people's lives.
>spending 40 plus hours a week making someone else rich until youre deemed too expensive to be a wageslave
yeah, lots of meaning about to be lost

>>11182525
No we don't, every time progress is made in AI, Chess is referenced constantly, but Kasparov is the last chess person anyone will ever care about or reference in pop culture or international press, unless some genius whiz kid comes along and starts blowing them all out at ten or something.

People care more about children's spelling bees even though autocorrect has existed for decades, on the other hand.

>>11182626
>unless some genius whiz kid comes along and starts blowing them all out at ten or something.

You mean like Magnus Carlsen

>>11182573
There is a huge difference between being the best person and an impossible to beat machine.

Best person inspires hope for other humans and gives them goals to aspire to and overcome them.
A machine can't be related to by humans for inspiration or aspiration and the difficulty canyon and focused skill gap is incredibly deterring more like pitting children against NFL teams.

>>11182636
I am not Norwegian, do they play his matches in prime time, give him big endorsement deals, and invite him on all the talk shows?

>>11182498
accelerate it obviously. human obsolesce is a good thing.

>>11182648
Magnus is on youtube.

>>11182648
>I am not Norwegian, do they
Pretty much. Nobody would care about chess here if it weren't for him.

>>11182542
>One big problem with Go and Chess AI is that they use exhaustive tree.
you might want to actually look at how alphago works before you post again

>>11182498
>Artificial Intelligence is already taking meaning away from people's lives.

Life doesn’t have meaning. Your premise is wrong so all conclusions drawn from it are suspect.

> Should we continue to accelerate or stop immediately?

Why would we ever stop?

>so anon what's your meaning in life?
>I spend all my time playing an ancient Chinese board game
how does this make life meaningful?

>>11182648
>A machine can't be related to by humans for inspiration or aspiration

Speak for yourself, rotter.
“You may say, it is impossible for a man to become like the machine, and I would reply, that only the smallest mind strives to comprehend its limits.”

>>11182626
>People care more about children's spelling bees even though autocorrect has existed for decades
this
just being the best human at it is enough
there's not a single game in the world that a computer can't ultimately be the best at, especially if we don't handicap it (like rts AI's have apm limits, fighting game AI's aren't allowed to react instantly, etc.)
i'm sure boston robotics or whatever will eventually build a robot that can run a marathon in 27 minutes, so what?
gogook's malfunction is he had some arrogant expectation that go was special in some way

>>11182801
if only he spent his life shitposting on a laotian basket weaving forum he would know what real meaning is.

>>11182805
>i'm sure boston robotics or whatever will eventually build a robot that can run a marathon in 27 minutes, so what?

That means a lot, actually, if only because that means WE will be able to do that too. The barrier between man and machine is one we will penetrate.

>>11182762
Where he doesn't even have a quarter million subscribers and his most popular video gets less than 800k views per year over 5 years whereas Kasparov has videos that get 5 times that traffic and most people in the world still have no idea who Kasparov is because nobody really cares about chess anymore.

>>11182765
>Pretty much.
In other words, not really, but he was on The Colbert report when that was a thing because he is not even a ten year old whiz kid, he is about 30.

>>11182804
It is, you have very different sensory organs, it would be easier for you to relate to a deep sea starfish than an actual machine unless some other clever human gave the machine an illusion of human sense or you lived several centuries from now in a timeline where you have heavily modified your senses until you were no longer human in ways you can't even really understand today.

>>11182798
>Life doesn’t have meaning.
For you...
Meaning is subjective and language is constantly evolving to reflect that fact.

>Why would we ever stop?
Often its less harmful to stop before being forced to stop by external forces that aren't concerned about suffering.

>>11182801
Meaning is written by the observer which is biased by perception and apparent insurmountability changes the optics removing some observer's ambition to ponder upon or share their experiences.

>>11182817
> It is, you have very different sensory organs

No it isn’t, because I actively aspire to become more like the machine. That I am currently unable to “relate”, as you call it, to the machine is a failure of my inferior flesh, which shall one day be rectified.

>>11182812
We can already do that, its called a vehicle, they are just banned in competition.

>>11182801
The game is held in high esteem oversees. It has a certain level of prestige and some people(like this man) have spent their entire life practising it. There's a certain amount of nobility to it in their culture too. It was meaningful to him, and nobody, especially not you, knows what is meaningful in life, so asking 'how does it make life meaningful' is a stupid question, because nobody has the answer.
It's easy to understand why he might be upset if he devoted his life to his craft and now it means nothing.
That said, AI is great and we shouldn't halt progress for reasons like this.

>>11182825
>For you...

For anyone. Any conjured “meaning” is purely illusory. It is quite literally not possible for human life to have “meaning” because “meaning” means “purpose” when humans use the term in this context and only inanimate objects have purposes, because purposes are intended roles imposed by an inanimate object’s creator or user. The only way a person could have “purpose” is if their parents made them for some specific goal like marrying them to a foreign princess so an alliance can be established, and there’s no reason we ought to care what purpose our parents intend for us.

>>11182827
No, your flesh can not live long enough given the current state and progression of technology and biological knowledge, the best you can do is implant a couple of little widgets and get a new understanding of sensation that is neither human nor machine, but cybernetic.
For instance they can currently implant a digital compass into your skin to give you an instinctive sense of direction.

>>11182834
>No, your flesh can not live long enough given the current state and progression of technology and biological knowledge

Dubious. Even assuming zero increases in average life expectancy due to improvements in medical science, I can make it to the 2070s, and mind-controlled prosthetics already exist.

>>11182833
>“meaning” is
That is all I was saying, it does exist, it is.

An illusion is still a thing, in fact, all of our senses and feelings are illusions, that doesn't mean we can't ascribe meaningful properties, descriptions, characteristics, and functions to things just to get euphoric from their own intellect or even to communicate meaning to other people in purposeful, functional, useful, or otherwise helpful ways for them to achieve their pointless illusory goals in this enigmatic environment.

Also meaning and purpose are not the same thing, so most of your post is incoherent drivel to me based on some strange meaning you have come up with that I can't relate to or validate with any of the english language tools online, are you an ESL or something?

>>11182851
>An illusion is still a thing, in fact, all of our senses and feelings are illusions

No, they are genuine.

> Also meaning and purpose are not the same thing

They quite literally are. That’s what most people intend to say when they discuss the supposed “meaning of life”.

>>11182542
Pretty sure neither of them use trees.

>>11182817
>In other words, not really,
No he is, they send any chess tournament he's in live on the main national channel and he's been on a lot of different shows.

>>11182855
No, they are neural encodings of electrical signals, no more real than the other mirages they generate.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life
No it is but one of many interpretations in that context, you are ignoring other easily available evidence to justify the meaning you have personally developed.

>>11182859
>he's been
>he has been
>has been
Not recently, it seems like he is a has been just like his sport.

>>11182863
No, I just don't watch TV or follow chess anymore so I don't know what he's been on lately. But I know there was a tournament not many days ago or it may be still ongoing for all I know.

>>11182863
>No, they are neural encodings of electrical signals

So, real.

> no more real than the other mirages they generate.

Mirages are not real.

>>11182938
Yes as real as any other illusion.

>Mirages are not real.
They are the same neural encoding from electrical signals. You can't coherently declare which one is real of not if you have established that reality has no meaning anyway.

>>11182648
>I'm not Norwegian
Magnus Carlsen gets way more press coverage and endorsement deals at present. Hes undoubtedly the best chess player to ever live and hes pretty much universally known by those who play chess.

>>11182542
>exhaustive tree
Stopped reading. Read up on the basics of neural networks before you post about it.

>>11182498
But when all people have become useless, self-prop systems will find no advantage in taking care of anyone. The techies themselves insist that machines will soon surpass humans in intelligence. When that happens, people will be superfluous and natural selection will favor systems that eliminate them-if not abruptly, then in a series of stages so that the risk of rebellion will be minimized.

Even though the technological world-system still needs large numbers of people for the present, there are now more superfluous humans than there have been in the past because technology has replaced people in many jobs and is making inroads even into occupations formerly thought to require human intelligence. Consequently, under the pressure of economic competition, the world's dominant self-prop systems are already allowing a certain degree of callousness to creep into their treatment of superfluous individuals. In the United States and Europe, pensions and other benefits for retired, disabled, unemployed, and other unproductive persons are being substantially reduced; at least in the U. S., poverty is increasing; and these facts may well indicate the general trend of the future, though there will doubtless be ups and downs.

>>11182498
>>11182525
It's important to understand that in order to make people superfluous, machines will not have to surpass them in general intelligence but only in certain specialized kinds of intelligence. For example, the machines will not have to create or understand art, music, or literature, they will not need the ability to carry on an intelligent, non-technical conversation (the "Turing test"), they will not have to exercise tact or understand human nature, because these skills will have no application if humans are to be eliminated anyway. To make humans superfluous, the machines will only need to outperform them in making the technical decisions that have to be made for the purpose of promoting the short-term survival and propagation of the dominant self-prop systems. So, even without going as far as the techies themselves do in assuming intelligence on the part of future machines, we still have to conclude that humans will become obsolete. Immortality in the form (i)-the indefinite preservation of the human body as it exits today-is highly improbable.

>>11182537
Chances are that AI will be able to recursively improve itself and create an intelligence explosion far faster than human intelligence can be improved.

https://intelligence.org/files/AIPosNegFactor.pdf

Building a 747 from scratch is not easy. But is it easier to:
• Start with the existing design of a biological bird,
• and incrementally modify the design through a series of successive stages,
• each stage independently viable,
• such that the endpoint is a bird scaled up to the size of a 747,
• which actually flies,
• as fast as a 747,
• and then carry out this series of transformations on an actual living bird,
• without killing the bird or making it extremely uncomfortable?
I’m not saying it could never, ever be done. I’m saying that it would be easier to build
the 747, and then have the 747, metaphorically speaking, upgrade the bird. “Let’s just
scale up an existing bird to the size of a 747” is not a clever strategy that avoids dealing
with the intimidating theoretical mysteries of aerodynamics. Perhaps, in the beginning,
all you know about flight is that a bird has the mysterious essence of flight, and the
materials with which you must build a 747 are just lying there on the ground. But you
cannot sculpt the mysterious essence of flight, even as it already resides in the bird, until
flight has ceased to be a mysterious essence unto you.
The above argument is directed at a deliberately extreme case. The general point is
that we do not have total freedom to pick a path that sounds nice and reassuring, or
that would make a good story as a science fiction novel. We are constrained by which
technologies are likely to precede others.

>>11182998
>machines will not have to create or understand art, music, or literature, they will not need the ability to carry on an intelligent, non-technical conversation
And this is why we won't become obsolete. Humanity can just relax and enjoy doing these things for eternity.

>>11183020
>because these skills will have no application if humans are to be eliminated anyway. To make humans superfluous, the machines will only need to outperform them in making the technical decisions that have to be made for the purpose of promoting the short-term survival and propagation of the dominant self-prop systems.
Learn to read you absolute fucking retard.

>>11182537
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pno6Ir_nDAQ

>>11183020
>And this is why we won't become obsolete.

You think like a retard. We should become machines ourselves so we can do everything we already do but better and without dying of old age or literal ass cancer

>>11182542
Well, the dota AI was a complete faillure, because the worst team and the biggest tournament trounced them and pro stacks started destroying it about 20 minutes after it went public.
AI is only good at mechanics, but it doesn't understand the game at all.

>>11182648
Chess is a game.

You can't run as fast or as far as a car, so why have marathons?

>>11182525
>A chess ai
There are no such things as AI. And there sure as hell are no such things as chess AI's, either. It's just a bunch of algos that have access to all the possible outcomes of a board. Congrats, chess had been a solved game for decade. Utilizing computing power to overcome humans inherent limitations is not an impressive feat.

>>11183036
Agreed, but remember it's only your descendants or your mindclones who can do that. You personally are stuck in this rotting organic shitheap forever so better get used to it.

>>11182498
>Marathon champion retires after realizing bullet train is "an Entity That Cannot Be Defeated"

>World record holding sprinter retires after realising the average house cat is an "an Entity That Cannot Be Defeated"

>>11182573
>There is literally only 1 best person at anything. Should everyone else just literally not enjoy whatever they are doing
You can actually beat the 1 best person at something. He and you would both still be people.
AI is on another level entirely.
Analogy: An unassisted deadlift of 1,014 lb is a very difficult feat that you probably won't come anywhere close to beating. But the possibility is still there that you as a human could do this since that record was set by a human.
An unassisted deadlift of 1,000,000 lb on the other hand would just be in the realm of ridiculous impossibility for the human body. So if you have machines working on that level it's safe to say that's going to remain machine territory that humans have no chance of ever becoming relevant in again.

>>11183152
People pride themselves a lot more on intelligence than on running speed. That's the reason your attempt at satire here doesn't work.

>>11183169
Playing go isn't "intelligence", even if it takes intelligence to be good at it, it's a specific solvable problem. That we can build machines to solve solvable problems shouldn't affect your personal self-esteem, it should make you proud of your species.

>>11183140
The "but it would only be a copy" meme is kind of dumb. There was never any real "self" continuity mechanism in place to begin with even across a normal human lifespan from moment to moment. "Self" is a narrative of convenience. A copy of "your" mind at T-1 would be distinct from "you" at T-1, but non-copy "you" at T-0 would be distinct from "you" at T-1 too.
There isn't anything more to continuity than a similarity in information content and physical features / location. There isn't anything special to carry over to a copy that ever was getting carried over to non-copy instances of "you" from moment to moment to begin with.
The momentary instances of "you" being lined up next to each other from past to future doesn't confer identity continuity any more than pebbles lined up next to each other on the ground would confer shared identity to them. It's helpful to behave as though there's this shared identity among them, but helpful fictions aren't anything you could ever either succeed or fail to carry over to a copy. They have no literal substance beyond being abstract ideas to behave around.

>>11183179
I'm just explaining why you're wrong and why people do have hurt egos over AI in chess and Go but not over cats in sprints.

>>11183169
You do, record holding sprinters probably don't.

>>11183191
Show me one example of a record holding sprinter retiring because he realized there was no point when cats would always be faster.
There's an obvious difference here between the AI strategy case and the cat running case. Don't pretend there isn't.

>>11183187
>I'm just explaining why you're wrong
What am I wrong about? I think you should stop reading too much into a joke. That wasn't me you were replying to, by the way.

>>11183187
People get their egos hurt for lots of reasons, almost never valid. The practical cure for a hurt ego is to realise you're making a fuss about nothing.

>>11183201
I don't care who you are. It's an anonymous image board. If you don't want to be identified with the person someone replying to don't reply in turn.

>>11183210
Whether it's "valid" or not is irrelevant. The point is still there's an obvious difference between the AI case and the cats case. People have a long history of priding themselves on intelligence as the thing humans are best at. Running isn't something people have had their egos wrapped up in to anywhere near the same extent. AI becoming effective to the point of being unbeatable has clearly hurt this pride in a way that never happened with animals and physical feats.

>>11183199
>Show me one example of a record holding sprinter retiring because he realized there was no point when cats would always be faster.
That's the entire point of the analogy. "Retiring" from a human competition of any kind because you'll never be able to beat a nonhuman at something is retarded. Not only do athletes not do it, chess players/go players don't do it either. This guy either has a mental disorder or felt like retiring anyway and figured he'd get a publicity stunt out of it.
A go player thinking he shouldn't play at all because he can't beat a computer is no different than a sprinter thinking he shouldn't run because he'll never beat a cheetah.

>>11183186
You're asserting things you can't actually prove. The facts that 1) there's a strong illusion of continuity, 2) we don't understand the physics of the mind well enough to offer a solid and comprehensive explanation of consciousness and 3) I have a survival instinct are together enough to keep me from stepping into the Star Trek transporter. I don't need a convincing argument that it will kill me, the onus is on the people saying it won't.

>>11183221
It's a failed analogy because people don't feel the same way about intelligence. It's not a comparable situation.
>A go player thinking he shouldn't play at all because he can't beat a computer is no different than a sprinter thinking he shouldn't run because he'll never beat a cheetah.
Except it is different.

>>11183219
See
>>11183179
or tell me something I don't know. I don't know what you think I'm disagreeing with.

>>11183226
>I don't need a convincing argument that it will kill me, the onus is on the people saying it won't.
That's not true. Burden of proof is on you to show what specific magical object is not getting carried over in a copy but is getting carried over between difference "self" versions from moment to moment.

>>11183229
>I don't know what you think I'm disagreeing with.
You seem to think running and intelligence (or tasks that require intelligence, which is kind of a nonsensical distinction but I'll throw it in there since you complained about it) are comparable. They aren't. That's the disagreement.

>>11183165
>3400 elo
>not 5000

>>11183233
You seem to think you're an authority on the validity of analogies. You aren't. Cool your autism.

>>11183231
Don't be so fucking dense. The onus of proof for "will this kill me" has a different locus than the onus of proof for "is this abstract hypothesis valid". Unless the answer is convincingly demonstrated to be "no", I'll pass.

>>11183242
Nah, I actually used reasons to explain why it doesn't work. Maybe go back and try reading them again.

>>11183227
>It's a failed analogy because people don't feel the same way about intelligence.
I am not trying to tell you how people may or may not feel. I am telling you that ONE SPECIFIC person (the guy in OP) feeling this way is ridiculous. It's not restricted to running at all, this applies to any other competitive human endeavor. Chess is far more "solved" than go to the point where you could load the required AI to beat top players onto your phone, and yet I've never heard of a single chess player quitting because he can't beat computers. I've never heard of a single Go player doing it either, until this guy.

What one dude with an obviously warped sense of ego feels is not indicative of how "people feel" in general.

>>11183235
Based. I hope machines kill us off and colonize the galaxy.

>>11183233
It's comparable. I compared it, QED. Other than that I'm kind of baffled.

>>11183257
Like with most every other word in existence, there's more than one definition for "comparable." Generally in a context like this you're talking about whether two things are similar enough to be compared in a particular way you're trying to make a point with, not whether any sort of comparison at all is possible. Almost any two objects could be compared in one way or another, but that doesn't mean the word "comparable" never applies to anything.

>>11183253
It really isn't just a one person thing. You have to be intentionally obtuse to ignore the depressed sentiment people have in response to realizing they're becoming intellectually obsolete. And how this is definitely not similar to how people feel about not being able to run as fast as a cheetah.

>>11183250
Your "reasons" are indistinguishable from opinion. You aren't the arbiter of truth, so stop pretending otherwise.

You're arguing with at least three different people over this analogy, so it's pretty clear you're the one with communication problems here.

>>11183270
Which is why saying "it's not comparable" isn't a meaningful argument. Disagree with something specific I said and give reasons or go away.

>>11182498
It’s fucking obvious that a computer would eventually beat humans at simple games like go. Strict rules, the whole thing is just evaluating the state of the board and doing pure calculations to determine the next move. Literally the stuff computers were made for. You’re delusional if you think these games are the epitome of human intelligence

>>11183013
True, we can't beat a god AI in raw intelligence (if such thing ever becomes a reality). However I think that a lot of people today are very idealistic about just allowing this to happen, naively welcoming a world where the AI becomes increasingly advanced while we humans just stay in the same evolutionary level of intellectual capabilities. Just looking at our civilization we are already very vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation by the use of very primitive narrow AI tools, and so far there are no Utopic results to be seen anywhere, just increasing danger of a distopia happening.

What's stopping us from improving our biological brain function by using AI? We could keep making making ourselves recursively better as well, however the drawback is that this would take generations (for example think of bacteria evolutionary capabilities: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/antibiotic-resistance-mutation-rates-and-mrsa-28360/).).

Of course a single bird would be incapable of undergoing through too much change, but it's progeny could become ever more adapted to surviving In a world where 747 dominate the skies.

Also would like to talk about the somewhat suicidal attitude many have related to this AI subject, but the post have gone for too long I guess.


>>11183032
Gay

>>11183280
>It really isn't just a one person thing. You have to be intentionally obtuse to ignore the depressed sentiment people have in response to realizing they're becoming intellectually obsolete
There are tens of thousands of examples of players who are perfectly fine with the advancement of AI or even outright happy about it, and exactly one who got depressed and took his ball and went home. Your massive generalizations about how "people" (who?) have a "depressed sentiment" are completely unsubstantiated and have zero basis in reality.

>>11182648
They have Magnus Carlssen branded chess game on in-flight-entertainment on flights I've been on. That was one out of like 10 available games. So if even went to see the list of games you would have heard his name.

>>11182498
He should challenge the AI to Go-Boxing, the computer would get fucked up.

>>11182498
People play Go all the time knowing they can't be a champion. That tells you something about this guy's ego.

>>11183455
>box a robot
>made of metal
What are you going to do? Overheat its servos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sBBaNYex3E

>>11183465
That's a jockbot, go-playing robots are nerds who can't even move.

>>11183475
Well in that case make sure you bunch the computer rather than the monitor

>>11182498

you can find meaning by trying construct an AI that beat other people's AI

>>11182498
I wonder how much the AI folks paid him.

>>11182498
>cars are faster than me so i won't try to be the fastest human

what a child

>>11183593
>>11183579
I'm telling you that he got a massive pay off for retiring from the marketing team.

>>11182626
>>11182648
Stop living under a rock before you post

>>11182498
Bullshit clickbait article.
Lee has thought about retirement for a long time, major reasons are his conflict with the KBA and other Baduk organisations in Korea and him not keeping up with younger players anymore.
Western media only talk about a single throwaway line about AI, because they know that the brainlets on /sci/ and reddit will eat that shit up.

>>11182498
That's like saying you stopped being a mathematician because a calculator can do the same
Of course a computer has an absolute edge. Why would you WANT to play against AI in a game like go?

>>11183165
>getting absolutely mangled by several carved out flakes of sillicon full of impurities
The absolute state of humanity.

>>11183186
The thing is that the copy doesn't preserve the continuity in much the same way all the atoms you shed off during your life don't. The illusion ("illusion" because a human is objectively indistinguishable from the environment on the most basic level) of "being" apparently requires a limited rate of change (i.e. breathing vs getting lobotomized by a shotgun) to be preserved. There's a workaroun, though- either expand the brain with augmentations to the point where the removal of the original becomes inconsequential to the expanded mind (the same way that bits of the neocortex can be removed without too many consequences) or you just replace it away with a deifferent material over time within the rate of change constraints (Moravec transfer). I wouldn't hold my breath about all the singularity shit, though.

>>11183138
>It's just a bunch of algos that have access to all the possible outcomes of a board.
>all the possible outcomes of a board.
This isn't true.
>Congrats, chess had been a solved game for decade.
This isn't true either. You should look up what 'solved game' means.

>>11182498
The problem with this kind of thinking is that "we" cannot do anything. Humanity is not a unit that can be controlled. If YOU will not do it, but it is in the realm of possibility, someone else will.

>>11183711
you have some rather peculiar notions about what mathematicians do.

>>11182498
>Artificial Intelligence is already taking meaning away from people's lives.
No, it's not, it's SHIT and it's way, way over-hyped. Stop falling for memes.

>>11182498
>>AI cannot be defeated
That's like an athlete saying cars can go hundreds of miles per hour, why should I run marathons?

>>11182542
moron

>>11183032
based, wish he'd stop his shitty solipsistic blog posts

>>11182498
Nice link to the article, cock gobbler

>>11182498
>Artificial intelligence
Doesn't exist.
>taking meaning away from people's lives
Industrialization and Post-modernism already did that, and robber barons and kings before those, and yet people continue to lead meaningful lives.

>>11182804
>quoting 40k of all things for personal inspiration
>muh posthumanism
You've got good intentions but are making all the wrong decisions.

>>11182831
>now it means nothing
It still means everything. Only some egoist douche nozzle actually cares if they're the best at something. He obviously didn't care about the game itself or his own personal skill or his dedication and practice - he cared about being the best. When he couldn't claim that anymore, he throws a tempertantrum and gets all fatalistic?
I thought Eastern ideology was supposed to have the answer to deifying the self.

>>11183165
>you can actually beat the 1 best person
Pretty unlikely. At this point in human development, especially. The #1 best in the world is likely someone who not only comes from a genetic background that gives them an advantage, they individually are likely a genetic aberration especially suited for that, and then on top of it that specialty was likely noted during childhood and nurtured since then.

Your example of dead lifting is even more locked, since physical strength is largely determined by physical size. Someone of average height but high genetic ability for lifting weights won't be able to out-lift someone with high genetic ability and larger stature.

>>11183199
There is absolutely no meaningful difference. The only difference exists in the hubris of man. We have long known and understood that we are not the most physically capable species on the planet, but we absolutely cannot get out own heads out of our asses about how smart we're supposed to be. This go player retiring is nothing more the big fish finally learning he was actually in a little pond, and throwing a temper tantrum because of it.

>>11182833
1) you barely dodged the trap of silently making an unstated metaphysical assumption, by claiming that the consequence would not effect us. 2) Our parents did not create us. They fucked and we grew in our moms womb. Similary, the inventor of a tool designed it, not the factory the tool is produced in.

>>11182498
>Olympic runner retires after leaning about cars

>>11183822
>all the possible outcomes of a board.
That part isn't true. Usually for games like chess that have an insanely large number of possibilities, the computer will only look at the possible board states x moves ahead, where x is just a value that can be computed in a decent amount of time.

>>11182498
Exponential speed!

>>11182498
Artificial intelligence running in time dilatation loops is undefeatable, problem is, that we should not run a game, that commit minmax. We don't really know what to optimize for, and optimizing for well being would end up that we will be exact resonance of happynes in bose einstein contensate and totally annihilated.

What would you minmax for? How would you do points? In complete ecosystems you have problem with cheap energy, therefore having too much energy... It's retarded... Strict rules for harmonics still kills many beneficial possibilities...

Even artists don't know what is beautiful, because they are mostly too much hurt and jealous...

Universe is not safe experiment.

>>11185596
Yes, being a person that knows an lesser minimum living in a AI minimum or max you can't get out of because AI is knowing not optimal solution and cannot optimize anymore is really depressing, so in a time, it will align and even you won't know about it,...

Chess is a primitive game, and go too... It's solution is AI.

However, even choosing function combinations to minmax in normal life is not too difficult for AI, but AI can optimize for totally meaningless things.

I can watch grey wall all day, and I can't imagine being better, because it's too dangerous.

Welcome Reality, once again.

Games and actions may be entertaining, but last thing remaining in the universe to do would be classified ... Well, minmaxing at all, is psychiatrically classified as OCD.

>>11182498
>Porn star retires after learning about sex bots

>>11182978
>Yes as real as any other illusion

They’re not illusions by definition, sorry.

> They are the same neural encoding from electrical signals.

They’re not accurate, though.

> You can't coherently declare which one is real of not if you have established that reality has no meaning anyway.

That “reality has no meaning” has zero significance to whether or not illusions can be distinguished from accurate sensory data.

>>11183140
>Agreed, but remember it's only your descendants or your mindclones who can do that

Anyone living can by attaching the brain to artificial substrate.

>>11185101
>You've got good intentions but are making all the wrong decisions.

Prove it.

>>11185523
>by claiming that the consequence would not effect us

Consequence of what?

> Our parents did not create us. They fucked and we grew in our moms womb.

Meaningless word games.

REGUALTE REGULGATE REGULATE

THE GOVERNMENT CAN FIX EVERYTHING WE NEED TO GIVE THEM ALL OUR GONS AND MORE MONEY SO THEY WOLNT BE CONTROLLED BY CORPORATIONS AND THE EVIL ORANGE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!11

REGULATE REGULATE REGULATE I WANT OTHER MANS TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>11182570
yes it does

we care more about powerlifters than forklifts

>>11182525
It's even worse in weightlifting, where human champions don't hold a candle to cranes

>>11183811
>The thing is that the copy doesn't preserve the continuity in much the same way all the atoms you shed off during your life don't. The illusion ("illusion" because a human is objectively indistinguishable from the environment on the most basic level) of "being" apparently requires a limited rate of change (i.e. breathing vs getting lobotomized by a shotgun) to be preserved.
No, there is no evidence of any of this. You're calling what you have in mind an "illusion" but you're really thinking there's an actual mechanism in place, which again, we have no evidence of. The "illusion" (which is a bad word I wouldn't use here normally to begin with) if anything is just memories. "You" at a given moment T-0 have memories that refer back to prior moments T-1, T-2, T-X. None of that actually requires this only happen with one body at a time. You could have five copies of a person in the same moment with the same memories and they would all believe they continued from the instance of "self" with no copies at T-1.
This confuses a lot of people's intuitions on the topic because normally "you" don't have more than one instance of "self" in the same moment. This is where people start saying "but I wouldn't be able to move my copy's body, that means it isn't me!" Which misses the point that "you" at T-1 are NEVER able to move "you" at T-0 to begin with, just as none of the copies at T-0 would be anything "you" at T-1 could manipulate. No mechanism ever existed that magically teleports "you" at T-1 into "you" at T-0 and you shouldn't expect to be magically teleported into any multiple copy "you" instances at T-0 either, not because anything failed to carry over but because the entire way of thinking that expects something to be carried over was mistaken before copies were even a factor.

>>11182498
>pic
Go is just tic-tac-toe. There's no point in playing.

>>11185949
>mechanism ever existed that magically teleports "you" at T-1 into "you" at T-0
The causal chain links them directly, though.
Also, the macroscopic person doesn't give a fuck about microscopic semantic- his mechanism for subjective perception that allows him to "be" can only work (a person percieves himself as being alive) within narrow margins of change. The person obviously perceives a connection between the T-1 and T-0 states as exemplified by literally every living person ever.
>"but I wouldn't be able to move my copy's body, that means it isn't me!"
For 100% of people that would be true.
I still don't get why I would be supposed to care about an entity I subjectively perceive as separate from me and how this is supposed to make me feel better about dying.

>>11182636
How dumb are you to draw conclusions from that graph?

>>11182568
You are one of those pseudo hyper geniuses that I hate. Please off yourself.

>>11187385
No, he's right.

>>11182498
>wtf I can't run faster than a car RUNNING IS DUMB MOM I'M NOT GONNA DO THAT ANYMORE

Brain machine interface hooked up to Stockfish would be neat.

>>11187443
Getting rekt in the brain department hurts more because that's what human exceptionalism is based on.

>>11182498
>taking meaning away from lives
I thought that was what consciousness was.