288
An AI couldn’t beat humans at StarCraft, so it decided to cheat (www.theverge.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
91 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 day ago (3 children)

You've heard climate change was happening that whole time too, do you stop believing it?

Someday everyone alive will die, does it stop being true if you live to 20?

And in the very likely case that seems unrelated: just because people say something will happen, doesn't mean it happens tomorrow

For fucks sake man, if someone tells you "winter is coming" in July, are your running around in August talking about how it'll only keep getting hotter?

Have you ever even considered using logic before?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    Someday everyone alive will die, does it stop being true if you live to 20?

    If I lived to 20 and literally nobody in the world had died, then yes, that would be a rational conclusion.

    Look, I don't expect to convince you of anything, that's fine. You can look at trends and history and draw your own conclusions. Personally though, I've watched the march of technology first hand, I've seen how this works and I see where there's room for advancement. The last major paradigm shift was when we moved to multi core processors, but that kind of shift can happen again. For example, CPUs are still 2 dimensional, if they can solve the heat dissipation there's plenty of room for growth. Also we're still transmitting signals via electricity, but there's research being put into optical computers transmitting data via photons. My point being, this isn't the only viable architecture, and we will continue to develop technologies that are currently not even imagined yet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    Personally though, I’ve watched the march of technology first hand, I’ve seen how this works and I see where there’s room for advancement.

    ....

    Right...

    My example:

    But that assumption is the same as thinking a fallen object will keep gaining speed until it passes the speed of light

    Is literally what you're doing.

    You were born and lived during a period the apple was increasing in velocity, you may have witnessed it fall from the tree, but probably not. But that apple is going to hit the ground, that's the real limit for how small we can make a chip, we're already at the point with ASML that we have to fuck with light waves and only a single Dutch company can make the machine.

    Are there still gains?

    Sure, but the days of doubling is over, Moores law is dead.

    It's a direct analogy to the speed of light, something can double in speed every year for a very long time. But eventually it'll stop being able to and will increase in speed at a barely perceptible level, never beating light speed.

    Like, this is an insanely basic concept, and you're entire opposition is:

    You don't understand, this has always happened for the last few decades I've paid attention so it'll always keep happening

    Which is just completely illogical. And I'm not going to keep wasting time on people like you

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •