|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 73 OF 73 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-21-12 | | achieve: <[..] to the effect of soon creating an "event horizon" beyond which events are quite inconceivable to mine or any other human brain.> This is more or less the confirmation as quoted from the TIME article: <Maybe we'll merge with them to become super-intelligent cyborgs, using computers to extend our intellectual abilities the same way that cars and planes extend our physical abilities. Maybe the artificial intelligences will help us treat the effects of old age and prolong our life spans indefinitely. Maybe we'll scan our consciousnesses into computers and live inside them as software, forever, virtually. Maybe the computers will turn on humanity and annihilate us. The one thing all these theories have in common is <<< the transformation of our species into something that is no longer recognizable as such to humanity circa 2011.>>> This transformation has a name: the Singularity.
> |
|
| Jun-21-12 | | brankat: You guys are still discussing the Tal Memorial? :-)
And a fine event it was! |
|
| Jun-21-12 | | achieve: Immor<Tal>ity, indeed. |
|
| Jun-21-12 | | Reisswolf: All this discussion about luck!
Forget Carlsen. <I> am a very lucky guy. (At least that is what my girlfriend is constantly reminding me of.) |
|
| Jun-21-12 | | achieve: <Forget Carlsen. <I> am a very lucky guy. (At least that is what my girlfriend is <<constantly>> reminding me of.)> Oy... |
|
| Jun-21-12 | | parmetd: You guys are confusing a lack of skill with luck anyways. Two totally separate concepts. Anyways, it was definitely a nice event. |
|
| Jun-21-12 | | achieve: You can't be serious!
After all the hard work, what is left? |
|
| Jun-21-12 | | brankat: <You guys are confusing a lack of skill with luck anyways. > So then it means Carlsen is lacking in the skills department. |
|
| Jun-21-12 | | brankat: <achieve< <After all the hard work, what is left?> That's when You finally realize that You're totally dependent on Luck :-) |
|
| Jun-21-12 | | parmetd: No. I did not say *I* was confusing the two concepts. I said others were. |
|
| Jun-21-12 | | Bobwhoosta: <parmetd>
It really depends on how the word "luck" is being used, and the intended meaning of the user. Luck can simply mean "events outside of the control of someone", whereas skill "events inside the control". I understand you probably don't agree that this is the definition of luck, but it is how people use it, without implying that it is some mysterious force. In that guise, the lack of skill of someone else is in effect a lucky occurance for me. I had nothing to do with it, although my skill may have placed me in a position to take advantage of it. |
|
| Jun-21-12 | | Appaz: <<Reisswolf> <I> am a very lucky guy. (At least that is what my girlfriend is constantly reminding me of.)> Tell her that it's pure skill!
...or maybe not. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | polarmis: Evgeny Atarov wrote reports on the Tal Memorial, with extensive comments by Vlad Tkachiev (usually in italics). They're very, very long (speaking as the translator!), but surely the most interesting account of the event on the web. Links: Round 1: http://www.whychess.org/en/node/1983
Round 2: http://www.whychess.org/en/node/2016
Round 3: http://www.whychess.org/en/node/2032
Round 4: http://www.whychess.org/en/node/2035
Round 5: http://www.whychess.org/en/node/2047
Round 6: http://www.whychess.org/en/node/2056
Round 7: http://www.whychess.org/en/node/2057
Round 8: http://www.whychess.org/en/node/2058
Round 9: http://www.whychess.org/en/node/2068 |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | boz: Great work, Polarmis, thank you. Well worth taking the time to read. That Tkachiev sure doesn't mince words. |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | ajile: < achieve:
"In other words does God exist? Well, I'd say not just yet." - Kurzweil>Depends on how you define "God". If it's a guy in the sky with a white beard then no. If you define as Infinite Cosmic Awareness possibly yes. |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | Reisswolf: <If you define as Infinite Cosmic Awareness possibly yes.> Define "infinite cosmic awareness." And please give a falsifiable method of determining that the "awareness" is (a) infinite, and (b) cosmic. The best scientific knowledge says that the (observable) universe is bounded, so what exactly do you mean by infinity here? Are you just referring to the absence of a topological boundary? I am always interested to hear precise definitions from people on the "other side." |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | achieve: Or he meant:
Galactical Comic Consciousness ;)
<ajile> I posted the Kurzweil quote in reference to his "prediction" of man, through nanotech, Robotics, being able to create limitlessly, infusing Life/AI intelligence in dead matter, planets in space, which of course can be interpreted in that man has then "become as God." This statement marks Kurzweil's closing words from the Documentary, 'The Transcendent Man', and atheist RK refers with a slightly naughty and arrogant tone that "by then" we will "finally" see God in action, through Science. |
|
| Jun-23-12 | | ajile: I was talking a bit tongue in cheek since you can't comprehend such things as "God" with the mere human mind. Plus of course you have the problem of even defining terms which might relate to such a discussion. Suffice to say that an understanding of what "God" might be is probably limited to an actual experience not a mental "thought level" comprehension. For example you can try to explain to a child what sex is and they may think they understand. But until they are adolescents and actually EXPERIENCE it they don't really comprehend it. |
|
| Jun-24-12 | | achieve: I merely quoted Kurzweil's words and even mentioned his "arrogant" way of saying them. With the rest you are writing I have no beef, nor do I completely agree, but this is irrelevant; I <only> want to let come across what the mindset is of these in many ways rather arrogant - but understandable - remarks among the "transhumanist & Singularity establishment". After all they hold the by far most expensive keys in scientific research and development today. The discussion path you have entered may be interesting, though, but my references are to the Time article and those involved in the science and movement. |
|
| Jun-24-12 | | QueentakesKing: What is this two wins the most? Horrible. I can truly say that creative and combative chess are dead. I refer to Tata Steel with the same pattern ---numerous draws---with Anand playing in it!
CHESS COMPUTERS HAVE KILLED THE BEAUTY OF CHESS AND THE GAME. |
|
| Jun-24-12 | | achieve: Relax, man - about 50 percent of the games was <decisive>! - this is a huge stat, and testament to real human fighting, and making mistakes, on the board. OTB tournament chess looks in fine shape. |
|
| Jun-24-12 | | QueentakesKing: <achieve> You say so. |
|
| Oct-14-12 | | Everett: Looking back at this score table, this has got to have been one of the most even fields assembled. +2 for the winner, -2 for the loser over 9 games is quite even. BTW, lots of decisive games without the football scoring. |
|
Oct-15-12
 | | LIFE Master AJ: This tournament was truly amazing ... we had a different leader every round. (practically) The way Carlsen wound up winning - in the end - was truly impressive. |
|
| Mar-23-13 | | Everett: Of Kirzweil and others ideas and predictions, if half of them come true, humanity will barely be recognizable. Not sure how I feel about this. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 73 OF 73 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
