Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ActonofMAM t1_j3br6vd wrote

Yep. One of the main things we've learned over the last few decades of building bigger and bigger computers is that things that are hard for humans (Go and chess are good examples) can be very easy for computers.

The reverse is also true. Things that are trivially easy for humans (walking, hand eye coordination, understanding a sentence you've never heard before) are very hard for computers. Although some of that looks easier than it is because computer programmers subconsciously equate a computer with an adult human. Infancy and toddlerhood are a time of enormous, concentrated learning as the entry-level human practices skills like "making their arms work under control" and "new words 101."

2

secdeal t1_j3c7d6o wrote

No, you can't 'solve' go by 'just building bigger computers'. That's the point. That's why the result was interesting. There had to be huge algorithmic innovations and the use of neural networks which had little to do with bigger computers.

2

ActonofMAM t1_j3c9lrg wrote

I fully admit that I was oversimplifying. I don't think that detracts from my main points.

1