Hacker Neue

Preferences
ben_w parent
I don't see how it will convince anyone: people said as much before chess, then again about Go, and are still currently disagreeing with each other if LLMs do or don't pass the Turing test.

Irregardless, this was to demonstrate by analogy that things that seem simple can actually be really hard to fully understand.

bigyabai
I have never once heard someone describe Stockfish as potentially AGI. Honestly I don't remember anyone making the argument with AlphaGo or even IBM Watson, either.
ben_w OP
Go back further than Stockfish — I said "people said as much before chess", as in Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov.

Here's a quote of a translation of a quote, from the loser, about 8 years before he lost:

"""In 1989 Garry Kasparov offered some comments on chess computers in an interview with Thierry Paunin on pages 4-5 of issue 55 of Jeux & Stratégie (our translation from the French):

‘Question: ... Two top grandmasters have gone down to chess computers: Portisch against “Leonardo” and Larsen against “Deep Thought”. It is well known that you have strong views on this subject. Will a computer be world champion, one day ...?

Kasparov: Ridiculous! A machine will always remain a machine, that is to say a tool to help the player work and prepare. Never shall I be beaten by a machine! Never will a program be invented which surpasses human intelligence. And when I say intelligence, I also mean intuition and imagination. Can you see a machine writing a novel or poetry? Better still, can you imagine a machine conducting this interview instead of you? With me replying to its questions?’"""

- https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/computers.html

So while it's easy for me to say today "chess != AGI", before there was an AI that could win at chess, the world's best chess player conflated being good at chess with several (all?) other things smart humans can do.

This item has no comments currently.