The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular Liberty.com

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: There are several large holes

(See in situ)


There are several large holes

There are several large holes in that theory. Lets start with Blue vs. Kasparov, being both a chess player and having gone to school(albeit unfinished) for computer science, I have a different view on this. First, in no way is chess a game of chance...its all skill and how many moves you can see ahead...which is all well and good as long as your opponent makes the expected moves...but the problem comes when he makes a move you didnt expect....that changes the whole permutation of the game....so in general you can only look 20 moves ahead along a few different permutations before you reach your limit so you focus on the more likely moves your opponent will make and hope for the best, good players can recalculate very quickly(I myself am above average..won a couple tournaments back in HS etc, but am far from I consider good). What you have in Deep blue is enough computing power to see Every possible peemutation and how to turn it to its advantage. In short, Blue was not creating its own strategy...it was simply reacting to Kasparov the entire time...reaction vs creation. Computers do not and can not(with the possible exception of new quantum computers) think. Their whole world consists of 0 and 1 and how fast they can switch between to two alternatives. In a human brain(as illogical as it is) being a 0 does not preclude it being a 1...we can beleive two(or more) contradictory things simultaneously...much like the new quantum computers(christians and wars of aggresion is a great example).
Then there is the fact that Blue may have beat Kasparov...but that was its sole purpose....it can do nothing but play chess...Kasparov walked into that room...Blue had to be wheeled in, see the inherant problem here...you can have a machine that is perfect at making cars...but you will never have a machine that makes them can improve upon them....because all it knows is how to follow its code. You might argue that another machine could make improvements while the builder implements them...but they would only be improvements on paper...after all...wouldnt a hard composite plastic make a more durable seat than leather? My point is the very specialization required to beat a human at a specific application limits what they can do...an entire computer that can do nothing but play chess....Kasparov wrote many chess books...who really wins in the end?