Computers are no better than humans.

@chesseater78 said in #1:
> So I want to raise an alarm - however unpopular it may be in this age of artificial "intelligence" and it's unreserved glorification - that we as a specie don't put too much trust in technology and it's capability to safeguard our interests, lest we may some day find ourselves doomed to slavery under the dictatorship of masters we have ourselves created.

Despite the nonsensical reasoning which leads you to it, I completely agree with this concluding paragraph. I am very concerned about the sudden recent emergence of AI systems which many people are treating as if they are the providers of ultimate truth when in fact they can be just as unreliable as any random person making an ill-informed rant. AI is going to require serious international control if its effect on society is to be kept in check.

@ThunderClap#5

I agree with your post – but please allow me to make a small correction.

> ... & then M Adams lost 6-0 a Match

In 2005, GM Michael Adams (then ranked seventh in the world) “only” lost 0.5 to 5.5 to the computer program Hydra.

Care to elaborate what's "nonsensical" about it? Nothing what have been said in this thread has disproven my main point: In real life, computers are no better than humans.

Perhaps you have something, if so, be free to tell...

@Brian-E

@chesseater78 said in #13:
> Care to elaborate what's "nonsensical" about it?

Perhaps that word was unfair. But I think, reading between the lines of what you wrote in #1, that the source of your concern is the fact that computers work with simulation. This is not the crux of the problem in my opinion. All machines and tools which humankind has ever produced involve simulation on some level in the sense that they are a means to an end. There is nothing wrong with simulation provided that we maintain control over the situation.

@Brian-E

Yes, and that was exactly my point: Machines and computers are only better at simulation, because - like you said - that ́s the we (humans) have built them. So thank you for proving my point, I appreciate it.

And yes, there ́s absolutely nothing wrong with that as long - once again I agree with you - we are in charge. That was the purpose of my last sentence, to warn against where this unreserved (and many times undeserved) admiration of the machines we have built may lead to. We know from history whence unhinged admiration of a thing or a person may lead to, so that ́s a scenario which needs to be taken very seriously, particularly given that the technological capabilities of our time is far more greater than ever before in history.

So summa summarum: beware of dictators, whether they are humans, and especially if they're not, since humans have emotions, whereas computers aren't capable of feeling empathy and love, just to name a few of the things which make life more tolerable to us humans.

So that was my take on the issue, and thank you all for contributing to the thread.

@AsDaGo
@corvusmellori
@derkleineJo
@mkubecek
@ohcomeon_1
@Tenakel
@ThunderClap
@verylate

Have a good day/night you all!

There are tons of robots which could do that if they were programmed accordingly.

@Fyodorrus said in #16:
> There are tons of robots which could do that if they were programmed accordingly.

So you admit that there isn ́t one (currently), which could beat a human in live chess? And the reason to that is that a human hasn ́t
"programmed accordingly" one yet? So it ́s up to a human to do that, am I right? So who is the superior, the human who programmes the machine or the machine it self?

So whatever the case, human is still superior to machines, no matter how advanced it is.

Get it?

@chesseater78 said in #17:
> So you admit that there isn ́t one (currently), which could beat a human in live chess? And the reason to that is that a human hasn ́t
> "programmed accordingly" one yet? So it ́s up to a human to do that, am I right? So who is the superior, the human who programmes the machine or the machine it self?
>
> So whatever the case, human is still superior to machines, no matter how advanced it is.
>
> Get it?
Yup. Totally agree.

Any human following the advice of a computer running almost any chess program will beat any human without that advice almost every time. Does that mean a computer is "better" at chess than a human? It depends on what you mean by "better", but here's a thought: in this situation, a human is almost always better off following the advice of the computer without asking any questions. It's a game, with defined rules and fixed parameters. AI is working with a lot more variables and a much "fuzzier" data set that you have to be a lot more cautious about any recommendations or conclusions that they make, but they can be very useful tools - in medical diagnostics, for example, or trying to spot correlations that might not be as obvious to humans.

what in the world