When you have the resources, a tree search over a game's state space with a little bit of memory (so the enemy can't get your units stuck in a circle) is effectively unbeatable.
? A tree search branches so quickly that it doesn't matter how many resources you have, you can't possibly calculate them all. That is where the intelligence comes in: figuring out what branches to prune.
Problem with Hacker news is they don't have a funny mod, so everyone is always uptight, because if you don't say something insightful, you'll get voted down.
Just like a autonomous car is "cheating" because it has a faster reaction time than a human?
No, you're not thinking. The goal of an autonomous car is not to show intelligence, it's to drive autonomously. If it does that, cool, problem solved.
The point of building an AI to play Starcraft is to show intelligence. If all it does is dumbly click and micro a single marine to victory, then that's cool, but you failed to show intelligence.
Speaking as a intermediate starcraft player, I think starcraft would be a better game if either the number of actions per second were limited or if there was more scripting available for the human player
If you're below masters, that is not why you lose. I constantly beat people with twice my APM. The key is to build more units faster; again, if you're not in master level, then that is usually why you are losing. I think the constant focus on APM is unhealthy for the game, because it gets people focused on the wrong thing.
I'm not sure how insane micro would be cheating, it is simply the computer being better at micro than humans.
Because it's not showing intelligence, it's being able to click fast. We already know computers can click faster than humans, that's not a question.
The "Starcraft AI" is a thing because they are trying to improve the intelligence of computers. If all they do is click fast, they have cheated on the goal of intelligence.
we have enough information about the simulation argument to investigate the merits of it.
In fact, we don't. What is the likelihood that someone will create a simulation? Is it possible to create a simulation? Would the simulation be self-aware? How many universes are there that aren't simulations? In your probability calculations (of which I note you have presented none, because you don't have that information) did you avoid mistakes, such as accounting for the anthropic principal?
and the statistics tell us we're probably a simulation.
No they don't, because you don't know the likelihood that such a simulation is possible, or that someone would want to pay for such a simulation or even that their are alien races. You don't know how many simulations there are, or how many universes there are. In short, it is a Bayesian probability problem where none of the probabilities are known.
Because there are so many unknown probabilities involved and ignored, your logic is meaningless (being based not on probability, but on your estimation of probability). Consider also that because I dream so often, and there is only one reality, it is thus more likely that you are merely a dream, and not real.
I know this is a bold claim from somebody that's merely 31 years old, but no, that etymology does not hold. The word hacker was always at best neutral, and that's a stretch -- it was realistically negative,
It would be a more believable claim if you had cited evidence to back it up, but instead for some reason you gave us reasons not to believe you. It's like you're debating yourself!
The notion of hacker as meaning a black-hat goes back at least 40 years.
The notion of a hacker as a positive thing, someone who tries to deeply understand the system, goes back 50 or 60 years (look up the TMRC or even look for 'hacker' in the jargon dictionary for a citation).
Frankly it's worth a few 10,000s of deaths in Seoul.
That is a vast under-estimate of the casualties. In America, we have suburbs, in Korea this is what a suburb looks like. That's not a bad thing necessarily, and I think we need more like that in San Francisco, but with that kind of density, it's easy to see how 10,000 people could die in just a few shots.
Slashdot Mirror
That actually sounds really fun.
When you have the resources, a tree search over a game's state space with a little bit of memory (so the enemy can't get your units stuck in a circle) is effectively unbeatable.
? A tree search branches so quickly that it doesn't matter how many resources you have, you can't possibly calculate them all. That is where the intelligence comes in: figuring out what branches to prune.
Problem with Hacker news is they don't have a funny mod, so everyone is always uptight, because if you don't say something insightful, you'll get voted down.
It's a lot more relaxed at Slashdot.
This is a good example of extreme computer micro victory.
But the goal isn't to "make intelligence", it's the same as chess and go - to win the game.
We already know computers can win with insane micro, so cool, but if someone achieves that, no one will be impressed.
It's not even a worthy goal.
Just like a autonomous car is "cheating" because it has a faster reaction time than a human?
No, you're not thinking. The goal of an autonomous car is not to show intelligence, it's to drive autonomously. If it does that, cool, problem solved.
The point of building an AI to play Starcraft is to show intelligence. If all it does is dumbly click and micro a single marine to victory, then that's cool, but you failed to show intelligence.
Speaking as a intermediate starcraft player, I think starcraft would be a better game if either the number of actions per second were limited or if there was more scripting available for the human player
If you're below masters, that is not why you lose. I constantly beat people with twice my APM. The key is to build more units faster; again, if you're not in master level, then that is usually why you are losing. I think the constant focus on APM is unhealthy for the game, because it gets people focused on the wrong thing.
Also, learn to use the screen hot keys.
the end result usually comes down to players' ability to micro while maintaining these build queues
Also positioning, and building the correct unit composition to counter your opponent, and also knowing where to attack. Some strategies are really complex, here's an example where positioning is more obvious than normal.
I'm not sure how insane micro would be cheating, it is simply the computer being better at micro than humans.
Because it's not showing intelligence, it's being able to click fast. We already know computers can click faster than humans, that's not a question.
The "Starcraft AI" is a thing because they are trying to improve the intelligence of computers. If all they do is click fast, they have cheated on the goal of intelligence.
we have enough information about the simulation argument to investigate the merits of it.
In fact, we don't. What is the likelihood that someone will create a simulation? Is it possible to create a simulation? Would the simulation be self-aware? How many universes are there that aren't simulations? In your probability calculations (of which I note you have presented none, because you don't have that information) did you avoid mistakes, such as accounting for the anthropic principal?
I am guilty of ageism: I prefer to work with older people.
and the statistics tell us we're probably a simulation.
No they don't, because you don't know the likelihood that such a simulation is possible, or that someone would want to pay for such a simulation or even that their are alien races. You don't know how many simulations there are, or how many universes there are. In short, it is a Bayesian probability problem where none of the probabilities are known.
Because there are so many unknown probabilities involved and ignored, your logic is meaningless (being based not on probability, but on your estimation of probability). Consider also that because I dream so often, and there is only one reality, it is thus more likely that you are merely a dream, and not real.
That's not a very useful way to take it.......
jobs lost there have no promise of replacements.
Seriously? And you're an economist?
Yes, there are people who are content to live on that. But not most people. Would you?
If I could get healthcare and not have to worry about saving for retiremnt, then yes, absolutely.
I would move out of the bay area, though.
"Is this true? Is it *really* true."
No, it's not true, as you can see from this graph. Note that chart is a little old, and we've since recovered from the recession dip, too.
While you're at it, you might also be interested in seeing how all our manufacturing has been leaving the country as well.
Remember, when people start throwing crappy statistics around that can be checked with a quick google search, someone is trying to manipulate you.
I know this is a bold claim from somebody that's merely 31 years old, but no, that etymology does not hold. The word hacker was always at best neutral, and that's a stretch -- it was realistically negative,
It would be a more believable claim if you had cited evidence to back it up, but instead for some reason you gave us reasons not to believe you. It's like you're debating yourself!
The notion of hacker as meaning a black-hat goes back at least 40 years.
The notion of a hacker as a positive thing, someone who tries to deeply understand the system, goes back 50 or 60 years (look up the TMRC or even look for 'hacker' in the jargon dictionary for a citation).
Good points. A hacker can be good, or a hacker can be bad.
Yeah. That's why the previous hackers decided to steal credentials instead of reporting it.
Frankly it's worth a few 10,000s of deaths in Seoul.
That is a vast under-estimate of the casualties. In America, we have suburbs, in Korea this is what a suburb looks like. That's not a bad thing necessarily, and I think we need more like that in San Francisco, but with that kind of density, it's easy to see how 10,000 people could die in just a few shots.
If you liked that, get ready, because another three decades of Trumpanomics are coming. And it's not as intellectually sound.
Here is a counter-argument in comic form
Counter argument in comic form.
Good numbers, thanks
Jackson wouldn't have wanted to be on the money anyway. Really, he wouldn't have wanted a central bank at all.
$20 million is a lot. It makes you wonder who is paying for it.