Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You design things. Saying it designed a "way" is a very loose use of the word design. All the millions of chess moves already exist (in potentiality anyway), just as all the roads between N.Y. and Los Angeles exist. If a man chose certain routes to travel, you wouldn't say he "designed a way".Thats just wrong.
It designed a way to win chess, which is pretty impressive. Not only that, but many aspects of the type of play it designed are novel and astonishing to chess experts.
Why not? All possible things exist in potentia just the same.You design things. Saying it designed a "way" is a very loose use of the word design. All the millions of chess moves already exist (in potentiality anyway), just as all the roads between N.Y. and Los Angeles exist. If a man chose certain routes to travel, you wouldn't say he "designed a way".
Ha ha. First definition in websters and look at the example they use!You design things. Saying it designed a "way" is a very loose use of the word design.
Terrible analogy. You'd have to add to the LA trip an adversary bent on misdirecting you....All the millions of chess moves already exist (in potentiality anyway), just as all the roads between N.Y. and Los Angeles exist. If a man chose certain routes to travel, you wouldn't say he "designed a way".
Here I thought this would be a cool thread about machine learning, chess and the artificial intelligences of the future.
But no, it's about crevo/evo. It always is about crevo/evo. This is why I seldomly visit these forums.
Why not? All possible things exist in potentia just the same.
I didn't say it was an incorrect use of the word, I said it was a loose usage. We all know it can be used metaphorically, but in the context of this thread where In situ is comparing the execution of algorithms with actual and design and production of living, breathing 3D spiritual beings like you and me, that's a huge stretch.Ha ha. First definition in websters and look at the example they use!
Definition of design
transitive verb
1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive
- design a system for tracking inventory
I don't see how that would make any difference to the analogy.Terrible analogy. You'd have to add to the LA trip an adversary bent on misdirecting you.
That's not the comparison he's making. I won't attempt to explain it for him, as I have butted in enough already, but I will say that you seem to be too eager to make this into a theism v. atheism discussion....but in the context of this thread where In situ is comparing the execution of algorithms with actual and design and production of living, breathing 3D spiritual beings like you and me, that's a huge stretch.
Do you think the OP is a theist? I don't know actually. I suppose he could be.That's not the comparison he's making. I won't attempt to explain it for him, as I have butted in enough already, but I will say that you seem to be too eager to make this into a theism v. atheism discussion.
"Design" of a system or a process is not a metaphorical use of the word. Its a spot on dead center usage, and Websters backs me up with their choice of primary usage example.I didn't say it was an incorrect use of the word, I said it was a loose usage. We all know it can be used metaphorically, but in the context of this thread where In situ is comparing the execution of algorithms with actual and design and production of living, breathing 3D spiritual beings like you and me, that's a huge stretch.
Well, the OP also said that my saying AlphaZero couldn't and wouldn't happen naturally is invalid. I objected to his objection but he hasn't yet responded on that point.For purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter.
Well that's nice but it has little to do with the argument in this thread. You could say my pocket calculator designed an answer to 2+3."Design" of a system or a process is not a metaphorical use of the word. Its a spot on dead center usage, and Websters backs me up with their choice of primary usage example.
The things the adversary can do in a dynamic fashion to the available routes of travel explode the problem beyond the capacity of pure brute force analysis.I don't see how that would make any difference to the analogy.
What if you discovered a substantially similar algorithm working in nature?Well, the OP also said that my saying AlphaZero couldn't and wouldn't happen naturally is invalid. I objected to his objection but he hasn't yet responded on that point.
I dont see how solving 2+3 is in any sense comparable to designing a thing or a method.Well that's nice but it has little to do with the argument in this thread. You could say my pocket calculator designed an answer to 2+3.
The real difference between AZ ... is pre-existence of the algorithm (or DNA).
Well, the OP also said that my saying AlphaZero couldn't and wouldn't happen naturally is invalid. I objected to his objection but he hasn't yet responded on that point.
in the context of this thread where In situ is comparing the execution of algorithms with actual and design and production of living, breathing 3D spiritual beings like you and me, that's a huge stretch.
First definition in websters and look at the example they use!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?