Chess is far less intricate with far less variables than human interaction, just to bring to your attention. Of course a computer always wins at a game with limited variables and concrete rules/consequences per action. If you think that can easily be scaled to human interaction then you are sadly very ignorant. The rules of chess don't evolve like the minds of people.
BTW, it clearly is being used upon us for Psy Op purposes. If you meant nefarious against us, then you clearly haven't been paying attention to what Q's been saying.
I'm sorry but I'm an electrical engineer and deal with this type of logic directly. There is no way a program built off of a game with very finite moves and never-changing rules would ever be adapted to the real world where moves are infinite and the rules/consequences are never certain.
It would take an impossible amount of work to build the logic for a program to learn the interactions of just a single person to have any degree of reliable outcomes.
Not a chess, but a game engine. It uses a neural turing machine to process patterns. It solves cool problems where variable are limited and results can be reasonably known, like how to properly fold proteins.
If you seriously think that such a thing could ever learn even a single persons ever-changing mind then you don't understand how this AI is working.
"AI could well be responsible for the intricacies of the Qniverse."
"Who knows what AI is truly capable of. Who knows how it is already being used upon us for Psy Op purposes."
Used on us? Like, on our minds? On our bodies? What did you mean? How does that happen without learning anything about us or our minds?
"If it is able to do that within the confines of the chess world then you have to recognise the awesome potential beyond chess."
You are right, you really aren't saying much at all. You infer it strongly.
Everything you are suggesting completely ignores the fact that this and any and all AI can only operate within finite variables and knowable outcomes.
No, I don't "have to recognise the awesome potential beyond chess" unless you strictly meant problems with finite variable and knowable outcomes like games or puzzles.
But I know you didn't mean that because you think it could be responsible for "the intricacies of the Qniverse" whatever that is supposed to mean, which clearly shows you don't understand the AI's limitations.
It's easy to tell when someone's not from around here because they are incapable of comprehending any argument made and will just continue spouting off points based on already disproved notions, and then make self-contradicting statements as if you've forgotten your original argument completely.
We don't tolerate bullshit here. I'll continue to be harsh on you as long as you are unreasonable.
I was expecting to see a glass of wine when you said "I'm proud of this Vintage"
I know this guy personally. It's Facebook.
Chess is far less intricate with far less variables than human interaction, just to bring to your attention. Of course a computer always wins at a game with limited variables and concrete rules/consequences per action. If you think that can easily be scaled to human interaction then you are sadly very ignorant. The rules of chess don't evolve like the minds of people.
BTW, it clearly is being used upon us for Psy Op purposes. If you meant nefarious against us, then you clearly haven't been paying attention to what Q's been saying.
I'm sorry but I'm an electrical engineer and deal with this type of logic directly. There is no way a program built off of a game with very finite moves and never-changing rules would ever be adapted to the real world where moves are infinite and the rules/consequences are never certain.
It would take an impossible amount of work to build the logic for a program to learn the interactions of just a single person to have any degree of reliable outcomes.
Not a chess, but a game engine. It uses a neural turing machine to process patterns. It solves cool problems where variable are limited and results can be reasonably known, like how to properly fold proteins.
If you seriously think that such a thing could ever learn even a single persons ever-changing mind then you don't understand how this AI is working.
"AI could well be responsible for the intricacies of the Qniverse."
"Who knows what AI is truly capable of. Who knows how it is already being used upon us for Psy Op purposes."
Used on us? Like, on our minds? On our bodies? What did you mean? How does that happen without learning anything about us or our minds?
"If it is able to do that within the confines of the chess world then you have to recognise the awesome potential beyond chess."
You are right, you really aren't saying much at all. You infer it strongly.
Everything you are suggesting completely ignores the fact that this and any and all AI can only operate within finite variables and knowable outcomes.
No, I don't "have to recognise the awesome potential beyond chess" unless you strictly meant problems with finite variable and knowable outcomes like games or puzzles.
But I know you didn't mean that because you think it could be responsible for "the intricacies of the Qniverse" whatever that is supposed to mean, which clearly shows you don't understand the AI's limitations.
It's easy to tell when someone's not from around here because they are incapable of comprehending any argument made and will just continue spouting off points based on already disproved notions, and then make self-contradicting statements as if you've forgotten your original argument completely.
We don't tolerate bullshit here. I'll continue to be harsh on you as long as you are unreasonable.