That's because wine only supports applications that already have dozens of better native Linux alternatives. If you want to run something that only runs under Windows and has no Linux equivalent it is almost guaranteed not to work. E.g. they only reason I've ever wanted it was to run proprietary software designed to update proprietary hardware over USB. But wine mysteriously thinks that it's 1995 still and doesn't bother with USB support.
Exactly this. The only things I ever need Windows for are for connecting proprietary devices via USB to make configuration tweaks or update firmware. These devices have no software for any OS other than Windows, and require a USB connection to do the updates.
Wine can't do that, which means Linux can't do that. Which means I need a full blown Windows install available to me just to update junk hardware.
Beyond that I see absolutely zero reason to run any Windows only program. There's so much high quality software available for Linux that usually works even better than the Windows equivalent that I never even consider trying to run a Windows program through Wine.
Basically the Wine devs are focusing all their energy in the wrong places. It's those stupid one off hardware update programs that need addressing, not yet another copy of a program that already has a superior native Linux application that does the same thing better anyway.
Amazon etc will no longer be able to offer lower "market bearing" pricing specifically for them - which means its going to have an overall negative effect on the ability of those nations populations to buy online.
I don't think you grasp how "market bearing" prices work. This pricing scheme is used to raise the prices of goods in richer markets, never to lower them in poorer ones. If the item wasn't profitable to sell at a certain price, they wouldn't have been selling it at that price to start with. The fact that they're charging more in the richer market means they just want even more profit (simple greed).
This is especially egregious because we don't have "market bearing" pricing on the wholesale or labour side of things, so those companies invariably took advantage of low cost jurisdictions on one end, and high cost jurisdictions on the other.
I don't see why we should give companies the benefit of choosing the best deal in the world for producing products, while at the same time actively preventing consumers from doing the exact same thing on the retail side.
The i8 isn't a "dedicated electric car" it's a hybrid. You can't buy one without a gasoline engine, or with a battery pack big enough to do anything at all. The i3 is a different matter of course, but I would bet the majority of those are hybrid as well (they sell both hybrid and ev versions) As for Toyota, their ev efforts have been the epitome of "compliance". And while Mitsubishi technically has the imiev, it's hardly been a blockbuster hit. Meanwhile Volkswagen's egolf actually gets really good reviews.
VW is no saint here, but they're not behind anyone other than Tesla, and maybe gm with the bolt, but let's face it, everyone is behind Tesla.
Right now if your want a real world usable long range ev you can buy a Tesla, or a Bolt. There really aren't any other options.
If the army is on your side, you don't need your own guns. If the army is against you, no amount of guns will help you. So what purpose do the guns serve other than mass shootings and kids killing family members?
It's a choice they can make it they want. But they can't then claim that the other vehicle is on schedule when it's more than 2 years late. Yes, they have a reason it's late, but that doesn't suddenly change it from being late to being in time.
Claiming it is on time is just revisionist history.
I don't think you've looked at the numbers at all.
They ARE like Amazon there, they're plowing more money in to capital expansion than they're making on vehicle sales. If they had built a battery factory the size they needed for the vehicles they were producing, or kept the same number of stores they already had, etc, they'd be profitable already. But instead they built a much bigger battery factory than they have any need for yet, and built out more stores, in more countries. This costs a lot of money.
I personally think they've made the wrong choices in their expansion, and that a slightly slower expansion, one that left them profitable, would have been a better idea. But I don't run the company. There's also an argument that's been put forward that Tesla is actually intentionally losing money so as to dissuade other companies from competing with them. Peter Rawlinson (designer of the Model S who has now departed the company) has accused Tesla of this.
Tesla is many things (and a large number of them negative) but "losing money on each car sold" isn't one of them. Tesla has had to deal with a bunch of financial hurdles that wouldn't apply to other established automakers entering the electric space. The fact that there is still zero competition to the Model S is demonstrating the incompetence and apathy of the other manufacturers, not the lack of profitability of making an EV. If you really think that EVs can't be profitable, listen to Mary Barra (CEO of GM) She thinks EVs are profitable, and is committing to build a lot of them (unfortunately she's starting awful late here...)
Safety is easy. There is ZERO safety benefit, and there is a safety danger to noise pollution that is well documented.
If it was really about safety, ALL vehicles would be required to be a minimum noise level, not just electric ones. Listen to a high end internal combustion vehicle some time, they're nearly silent at low speeds.
This is a modern "red flag law" designed to punish new technology. Nothing more.
There was actually no up-tick, and modern internal combustion cars are actually quieter than these vehicles, so the concept of it being for "safety" is easily disproven.
They aren't profitable, but that's nothing to do with the vehicles themselves, they actually have among the highest profit margins in the auto industry on each vehicle sold. The losses are all on the business expansion side, building out new stores, service centres, factories, etc. Things a traditional automaker wouldn't have to worry about in this space. In short, Tesla has a spending problem, not an income problem.
I'm not exactly Tesla's biggest fan (I personally think they're the scummiest company I've ever dealt with, and that says a lot!) but they have managed to get a profitable, and desirable, long range, high end, electric vehicle out the door and in to consumer's hands. Something no other automaker has yet done.
google "red flag laws" while you're at it. It's exactly the same motivation. This has zero to do with safety, and everything to do with resistance to change.
VW isn't "behind the pack" they're behind a couple of early technology leaders. VW is actually at the front of the "pack" of major manufacturers who are still WAY behind the curve on electrification.
That said, it's absolutely pathetic that nearly 10 years after Tesla announced the Model S that there still isn't a single competitor to that vehicle. (And how I wish there was, I'm sick of Tesla's slimy unethical behaviour!)
Don't worry, humanity is working hard to screw it up yet.
New laws require all electric vehicles to include noisemakers which could potentially make them LOUDER than modern internal combustion vehicles (I wish I was joking!) And most announced "electric" vehicles by all manufacturers (including VW) aren't actually electric anyway and are only hybrids.
They'd be behind Tesla by 5 years if the product could be purchased TODAY. It can't. They haven't even rolled out a prototype that can compete with a 2012 Tesla Model S, and a prototype is expected several years before a purchasable product.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Tesla fan by any means, they're a horrible, slimy company, but I drive a Model S because there is simply no competing vehicle on the road yet. I'll be first in line when someone comes up with an actual competitor.
3 months behind the revised schedule... Gen 3 as it was originally called was supposed to launch in 2015.... https://www.slideshare.net/dpa... (page 2)
Actually it is something you can make up in volume if you understand where they're losing money vs where they're making it. They make money on every single car sold, actually among the highest profit margin in the industry. They just happen to spend even more on expanding their business. If Tesla slowed down their rate of expansion their profitability would go up. They could be profitable right now if they wanted to, but they're more focused on growing than on profitability.
I personally think that Tesla are making a lot of very stupid decisions, and that they should focus a bit more on profitability than they are. I also think they're a slimy unethical company (see my other posts on that subject) but the one thing they aren't doing is losing money on a per-car basis, (even if they are losing money every single year, and even though some people chose to divide the losses by the cars sold to try to make a (false) point).
If it's like every other car so far, it will launch several years late and with fewer features and lower specs than originally announced, and at a higher price. Even then, the features they claim it does in fact have at launch will turn out to not in fact exist in the vehicle.
Model 3 actually broke this trend by launching on time (on a schedule that they had accelerated, at that)
Wow... that's some pretty revisionist history there! the Model 3 launched on their REVISED time. Not on the original time. The "gen 3" as it was originally named was supposed to launch in 2015 to people who reserved in 2014. https://www.slideshare.net/dpa... page 2.
So what products has Tesla announced more than a couple years ago that haven't since come to exist?
Off the top of my head? I'm sure this is only a small sample of the many missed targets: - Hands free on-ramp to off-ramp driving (announced as coming through software within the next few months in 2014) - The car picking you up anywhere you happen to be on private property (announced as coming through software within the next few months in 2014) - Car meeting you at your front door on private property based on reading your calendar (announced as coming through software within the next few months in 2014) - Car automatically parking itself in your garage after dropping you off at your front door (announced as coming through software within the next few months in 2014) - Ultrasonic sensors that work at all speeds (announced in 2014, but the sensors actually have a lower top speed than the car) - Automatic Emergency Braking that brings the vehicle to a complete stop (Announced in 2014 as coming through software within the next few months, current version only reduces the impact of an already unavoidable collision, and actually releases the brake pedal once shedding a certain amount of speed) - 85kwh battery packs (they never released one, despite claiming to in 2012 and continuing to sell it until 2015, it was always only 81kwh and then software limited to 77kwh) - retractable sunshades in the Model S (announced approximately 2010) - Lighted vanity mirrors in the model S (announced approximately 2010) - Model S centre console retrofits in all interior colours - Charge cable that automatically connects to the car without human intervention (Announced in 2014) - "full self driving" capable hardware (they claim they're already shipping this, but mark my words, this hardware will NEVER be full self driving, it's simply incapable of it) - A vehicle with lower maintenance than internal combustion vehicles (announced repeatedly since 2012, but they continue to have among the highest shop rates and parts prices in the industry, coupled with extreme delays on getting any parts, and only mediocre reliability) - Seamless service experience where a valet picks up your car, replaces it with a loaner car that is a fully loaded top of the line car, and you don't have to go anywhere or do anything. If you prefer the loaner car to your own you can keep it and pay the difference. - $50,000 Model S - $35,000 Model 3 - Free unlimited supercharging for life (unlimited now has limits, even for people who bought the car when it was marketed as unlimited) - A car that gets better over time through over the air software updates (the vast majority of updates actually remove functionality, not add new functionality)
Tesla has a reputation for always delivering, though late. But the truth is that they only ever deliver a small fraction of the things they promise. They always over promise and under deliver.
I don't want to belittle what they have accomplished, it's nothing short of amazing, and almost 10 years after they first announced the Model S, there still isn't a single other competing vehicle on the market, that says something right there. That said, I won't give them a free pass on their continual blatant lies and revisionist history. Tesla is an EXTREMELY scummy company, and the absolute slimiest I've ever had the misfortune of buying anything from (which says a LOT!)
I will be the first person in line when a competitor to Tesla finally emerges, and I only hope that I can keep my S from losing too much more functionality than it already has in the interim.
Alphago impresses people because it manages to make moves they hadn't thought of. It can make those moves because it has a lookup table that it has built of as many possible moves as it could, and can calculate the likelihood of success of each move based on it's algorithm. It is no more intelligent than the paperweight sitting on my desk. You can't take Alphago and ask it to perform a completely different task without re-writing the underlying code because it's not actually capable of "learning" anything. All it can do is build a lookup table, and then look things up in it.
We *may* sometime in the future develop a form of AI, but as of right now there have been zero indications of it yet developed.
They taught it how to play go by letting it watch games being played. The second version learned by playing against itself.
So in other words, they inputted a lookup table.
There are video game playing AIs that learn to play pac-man or other classics by trying things and seeing the results it makes on the screen. They don't even define where the score is, or even that there is a score. They let the algorithm figure out what makes for a better result and it learns to play the game with no rules given to it. If you give the same algorithm a new game it can learn that one just as easily.
Except that's not at all how it works. You always are working from a data table. Either the table is from previous game play, in which case it will be incapable of performing any move that it has never seen done before, or the table is from playing against itself, in which case it needs to know the rules, and then will try to develop every possible combination of legal moves. Either way, it simply calculates from the table what move has the highest success rate for each situation.
In the first situation, you could put it in front of any game, and it would be able to mimic any move it has previously seen, but never come up with a new move that others haven't done before, in the second case it can do any legal move, including ones that nobody has seen before, but only because it has the rules and the lookup table. In that case it will be completely incapable of playing any other game, because the rules you gave it will be different. In fact it likely won't even be able to recognize the other game as needing to be played because it differs from the programming that it was given for the first game.
None of this would fit any definition of "intelligence" as we know it, unless you believe that "on a computer" is different from anything else, in which case you are also the problem with our patent system.
Doesn't sound like you have been paying attention to what the AI has been doing these days.
On the contrary, I've been paying close attention, and see that they have yet to come up with anything that includes even the most basic rudimentary intelligence. So far, about all they've managed to do is build lookup tables with fancy names and high dollar price tags. Anyone impressed with the "intelligence" behind them should have failed their first computer programming or digital logic class.
No, it's not "learning" anything. It's a lookup table, it was programmed to run all the possible moves so that it can calculate which moves have the highest probability of success in every situation. It can beat a human because no human can remember that many possibilities and calculate them on the fly, but given enough time a human could follow the exact same algorithm and get the exact same results.
If you take that same program, without any modification, and tell it to play chess instead of go, it won't have a clue what to do because it is fundamentally incapable of playing any game other than the one it was programmed to play. It can't learn a new game because it can't actually learn anything at all. All it can do is follow it's programming.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because wine only supports applications that already have dozens of better native Linux alternatives. If you want to run something that only runs under Windows and has no Linux equivalent it is almost guaranteed not to work. E.g. they only reason I've ever wanted it was to run proprietary software designed to update proprietary hardware over USB. But wine mysteriously thinks that it's 1995 still and doesn't bother with USB support.
Exactly this. The only things I ever need Windows for are for connecting proprietary devices via USB to make configuration tweaks or update firmware. These devices have no software for any OS other than Windows, and require a USB connection to do the updates.
Wine can't do that, which means Linux can't do that. Which means I need a full blown Windows install available to me just to update junk hardware.
Beyond that I see absolutely zero reason to run any Windows only program. There's so much high quality software available for Linux that usually works even better than the Windows equivalent that I never even consider trying to run a Windows program through Wine.
Basically the Wine devs are focusing all their energy in the wrong places. It's those stupid one off hardware update programs that need addressing, not yet another copy of a program that already has a superior native Linux application that does the same thing better anyway.
Amazon etc will no longer be able to offer lower "market bearing" pricing specifically for them - which means its going to have an overall negative effect on the ability of those nations populations to buy online.
I don't think you grasp how "market bearing" prices work. This pricing scheme is used to raise the prices of goods in richer markets, never to lower them in poorer ones. If the item wasn't profitable to sell at a certain price, they wouldn't have been selling it at that price to start with. The fact that they're charging more in the richer market means they just want even more profit (simple greed).
This is especially egregious because we don't have "market bearing" pricing on the wholesale or labour side of things, so those companies invariably took advantage of low cost jurisdictions on one end, and high cost jurisdictions on the other.
I don't see why we should give companies the benefit of choosing the best deal in the world for producing products, while at the same time actively preventing consumers from doing the exact same thing on the retail side.
The i8 isn't a "dedicated electric car" it's a hybrid. You can't buy one without a gasoline engine, or with a battery pack big enough to do anything at all. The i3 is a different matter of course, but I would bet the majority of those are hybrid as well (they sell both hybrid and ev versions)
As for Toyota, their ev efforts have been the epitome of "compliance". And while Mitsubishi technically has the imiev, it's hardly been a blockbuster hit. Meanwhile Volkswagen's egolf actually gets really good reviews.
VW is no saint here, but they're not behind anyone other than Tesla, and maybe gm with the bolt, but let's face it, everyone is behind Tesla.
Right now if your want a real world usable long range ev you can buy a Tesla, or a Bolt. There really aren't any other options.
If the army is on your side, you don't need your own guns. If the army is against you, no amount of guns will help you. So what purpose do the guns serve other than mass shootings and kids killing family members?
It's a choice they can make it they want. But they can't then claim that the other vehicle is on schedule when it's more than 2 years late. Yes, they have a reason it's late, but that doesn't suddenly change it from being late to being in time.
Claiming it is on time is just revisionist history.
I don't think you've looked at the numbers at all.
They ARE like Amazon there, they're plowing more money in to capital expansion than they're making on vehicle sales. If they had built a battery factory the size they needed for the vehicles they were producing, or kept the same number of stores they already had, etc, they'd be profitable already. But instead they built a much bigger battery factory than they have any need for yet, and built out more stores, in more countries. This costs a lot of money.
I personally think they've made the wrong choices in their expansion, and that a slightly slower expansion, one that left them profitable, would have been a better idea. But I don't run the company. There's also an argument that's been put forward that Tesla is actually intentionally losing money so as to dissuade other companies from competing with them. Peter Rawlinson (designer of the Model S who has now departed the company) has accused Tesla of this.
Tesla is many things (and a large number of them negative) but "losing money on each car sold" isn't one of them. Tesla has had to deal with a bunch of financial hurdles that wouldn't apply to other established automakers entering the electric space. The fact that there is still zero competition to the Model S is demonstrating the incompetence and apathy of the other manufacturers, not the lack of profitability of making an EV. If you really think that EVs can't be profitable, listen to Mary Barra (CEO of GM) She thinks EVs are profitable, and is committing to build a lot of them (unfortunately she's starting awful late here...)
So in other words we can ignore any delay if they have an excuse...
By that logic it would be basically impossible for them to be behind schedule at all on anything.
Isn't it great when you can move the goalposts at will?
Safety is easy. There is ZERO safety benefit, and there is a safety danger to noise pollution that is well documented.
If it was really about safety, ALL vehicles would be required to be a minimum noise level, not just electric ones. Listen to a high end internal combustion vehicle some time, they're nearly silent at low speeds.
This is a modern "red flag law" designed to punish new technology. Nothing more.
There was actually no up-tick, and modern internal combustion cars are actually quieter than these vehicles, so the concept of it being for "safety" is easily disproven.
They aren't profitable, but that's nothing to do with the vehicles themselves, they actually have among the highest profit margins in the auto industry on each vehicle sold. The losses are all on the business expansion side, building out new stores, service centres, factories, etc. Things a traditional automaker wouldn't have to worry about in this space. In short, Tesla has a spending problem, not an income problem.
I'm not exactly Tesla's biggest fan (I personally think they're the scummiest company I've ever dealt with, and that says a lot!) but they have managed to get a profitable, and desirable, long range, high end, electric vehicle out the door and in to consumer's hands. Something no other automaker has yet done.
google "red flag laws" while you're at it. It's exactly the same motivation. This has zero to do with safety, and everything to do with resistance to change.
VW isn't "behind the pack" they're behind a couple of early technology leaders. VW is actually at the front of the "pack" of major manufacturers who are still WAY behind the curve on electrification.
That said, it's absolutely pathetic that nearly 10 years after Tesla announced the Model S that there still isn't a single competitor to that vehicle. (And how I wish there was, I'm sick of Tesla's slimy unethical behaviour!)
Don't worry, humanity is working hard to screw it up yet.
New laws require all electric vehicles to include noisemakers which could potentially make them LOUDER than modern internal combustion vehicles (I wish I was joking!)
And most announced "electric" vehicles by all manufacturers (including VW) aren't actually electric anyway and are only hybrids.
They'd be behind Tesla by 5 years if the product could be purchased TODAY. It can't. They haven't even rolled out a prototype that can compete with a 2012 Tesla Model S, and a prototype is expected several years before a purchasable product.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Tesla fan by any means, they're a horrible, slimy company, but I drive a Model S because there is simply no competing vehicle on the road yet. I'll be first in line when someone comes up with an actual competitor.
3 months behind the revised schedule... Gen 3 as it was originally called was supposed to launch in 2015....
https://www.slideshare.net/dpa... (page 2)
Actually it is something you can make up in volume if you understand where they're losing money vs where they're making it.
They make money on every single car sold, actually among the highest profit margin in the industry. They just happen to spend even more on expanding their business. If Tesla slowed down their rate of expansion their profitability would go up. They could be profitable right now if they wanted to, but they're more focused on growing than on profitability.
I personally think that Tesla are making a lot of very stupid decisions, and that they should focus a bit more on profitability than they are. I also think they're a slimy unethical company (see my other posts on that subject) but the one thing they aren't doing is losing money on a per-car basis, (even if they are losing money every single year, and even though some people chose to divide the losses by the cars sold to try to make a (false) point).
If it's like every other car so far, it will launch several years late and with fewer features and lower specs than originally announced, and at a higher price. Even then, the features they claim it does in fact have at launch will turn out to not in fact exist in the vehicle.
Model 3 actually broke this trend by launching on time (on a schedule that they had accelerated, at that)
Wow... that's some pretty revisionist history there! the Model 3 launched on their REVISED time. Not on the original time. The "gen 3" as it was originally named was supposed to launch in 2015 to people who reserved in 2014.
https://www.slideshare.net/dpa... page 2.
So what products has Tesla announced more than a couple years ago that haven't since come to exist?
Off the top of my head? I'm sure this is only a small sample of the many missed targets:
- Hands free on-ramp to off-ramp driving (announced as coming through software within the next few months in 2014)
- The car picking you up anywhere you happen to be on private property (announced as coming through software within the next few months in 2014)
- Car meeting you at your front door on private property based on reading your calendar (announced as coming through software within the next few months in 2014)
- Car automatically parking itself in your garage after dropping you off at your front door (announced as coming through software within the next few months in 2014)
- Ultrasonic sensors that work at all speeds (announced in 2014, but the sensors actually have a lower top speed than the car)
- Automatic Emergency Braking that brings the vehicle to a complete stop (Announced in 2014 as coming through software within the next few months, current version only reduces the impact of an already unavoidable collision, and actually releases the brake pedal once shedding a certain amount of speed)
- 85kwh battery packs (they never released one, despite claiming to in 2012 and continuing to sell it until 2015, it was always only 81kwh and then software limited to 77kwh)
- retractable sunshades in the Model S (announced approximately 2010)
- Lighted vanity mirrors in the model S (announced approximately 2010)
- Model S centre console retrofits in all interior colours
- Charge cable that automatically connects to the car without human intervention (Announced in 2014)
- "full self driving" capable hardware (they claim they're already shipping this, but mark my words, this hardware will NEVER be full self driving, it's simply incapable of it)
- A vehicle with lower maintenance than internal combustion vehicles (announced repeatedly since 2012, but they continue to have among the highest shop rates and parts prices in the industry, coupled with extreme delays on getting any parts, and only mediocre reliability)
- Seamless service experience where a valet picks up your car, replaces it with a loaner car that is a fully loaded top of the line car, and you don't have to go anywhere or do anything. If you prefer the loaner car to your own you can keep it and pay the difference.
- $50,000 Model S
- $35,000 Model 3
- Free unlimited supercharging for life (unlimited now has limits, even for people who bought the car when it was marketed as unlimited)
- A car that gets better over time through over the air software updates (the vast majority of updates actually remove functionality, not add new functionality)
Tesla has a reputation for always delivering, though late. But the truth is that they only ever deliver a small fraction of the things they promise. They always over promise and under deliver.
I don't want to belittle what they have accomplished, it's nothing short of amazing, and almost 10 years after they first announced the Model S, there still isn't a single other competing vehicle on the market, that says something right there. That said, I won't give them a free pass on their continual blatant lies and revisionist history. Tesla is an EXTREMELY scummy company, and the absolute slimiest I've ever had the misfortune of buying anything from (which says a LOT!)
I will be the first person in line when a competitor to Tesla finally emerges, and I only hope that I can keep my S from losing too much more functionality than it already has in the interim.
Considering how well my ad blocker works on Slashdot (100%), I would say that this is either not the case, or is highly ineffective.
Yellow pages is hardly a thriving business at this point...
I've looked in to it.
Alphago impresses people because it manages to make moves they hadn't thought of. It can make those moves because it has a lookup table that it has built of as many possible moves as it could, and can calculate the likelihood of success of each move based on it's algorithm. It is no more intelligent than the paperweight sitting on my desk. You can't take Alphago and ask it to perform a completely different task without re-writing the underlying code because it's not actually capable of "learning" anything. All it can do is build a lookup table, and then look things up in it.
We *may* sometime in the future develop a form of AI, but as of right now there have been zero indications of it yet developed.
They taught it how to play go by letting it watch games being played. The second version learned by playing against itself.
So in other words, they inputted a lookup table.
There are video game playing AIs that learn to play pac-man or other classics by trying things and seeing the results it makes on the screen. They don't even define where the score is, or even that there is a score. They let the algorithm figure out what makes for a better result and it learns to play the game with no rules given to it. If you give the same algorithm a new game it can learn that one just as easily.
Except that's not at all how it works. You always are working from a data table. Either the table is from previous game play, in which case it will be incapable of performing any move that it has never seen done before, or the table is from playing against itself, in which case it needs to know the rules, and then will try to develop every possible combination of legal moves. Either way, it simply calculates from the table what move has the highest success rate for each situation.
In the first situation, you could put it in front of any game, and it would be able to mimic any move it has previously seen, but never come up with a new move that others haven't done before, in the second case it can do any legal move, including ones that nobody has seen before, but only because it has the rules and the lookup table. In that case it will be completely incapable of playing any other game, because the rules you gave it will be different. In fact it likely won't even be able to recognize the other game as needing to be played because it differs from the programming that it was given for the first game.
None of this would fit any definition of "intelligence" as we know it, unless you believe that "on a computer" is different from anything else, in which case you are also the problem with our patent system.
Doesn't sound like you have been paying attention to what the AI has been doing these days.
On the contrary, I've been paying close attention, and see that they have yet to come up with anything that includes even the most basic rudimentary intelligence. So far, about all they've managed to do is build lookup tables with fancy names and high dollar price tags. Anyone impressed with the "intelligence" behind them should have failed their first computer programming or digital logic class.
No, it's not "learning" anything. It's a lookup table, it was programmed to run all the possible moves so that it can calculate which moves have the highest probability of success in every situation. It can beat a human because no human can remember that many possibilities and calculate them on the fly, but given enough time a human could follow the exact same algorithm and get the exact same results.
If you take that same program, without any modification, and tell it to play chess instead of go, it won't have a clue what to do because it is fundamentally incapable of playing any game other than the one it was programmed to play. It can't learn a new game because it can't actually learn anything at all. All it can do is follow it's programming.