On 06/02/2010 05:49 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
Equaling humans is an arbitrary and very long term goal, but it should not define how "hard" or "easy" something is and should not define what "works" and what "doesn't work." That's my beef.
Yet you say in another message that it's a natural measuring stick. I don't even know why you are arguing this. It's like arguing that the sky isn't blue, but rather some shade of arbitrary color. Throw a dart at the AI literature and you'll see comparisons to humans, and for good reason.
The only problem is that I was answering Dave, not Steve.
Your reply that I replied to was in response to Steve, who was trying to ground the conversation back to the original question. Anyways, I think this conversation is off the rails and a bit ridiculous. I do accept that lots of gains have been made in chess algorithms, and I appreciate your views on the matter, but otherwise you seem a bit oversensitive and unreasonable.
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
