Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
| || |
*Concerns advancements in computer AI.
*Concerns advancements in computer AI.
*''Go'' is an abstract strategy board game considered computationally difficult, compared to chess. Because of the size and number of possible combinations, computers don't have an easy way to exhaustively search for the best move.
*''Go '' is an abstract strategy board game considered computationally difficult, compared to chess. Because of the size and number of possible combinations, computers don't have an easy way to exhaustively search for the best move
| || |
Revision as of 09:18, 11 September 2013
Title text: 'At least humans are better at quietly amusing ourselves, oblivious to our pending obsolescence' thought the human, as a nearby Dell Inspiron contentedly displayed the same bouncing geometric shape screensaver it had been running for years.
|| This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: |
Please include the reason why this explanation is incomplete, like this:
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.
- Concerns advancements in computer AI.
- Go is an abstract strategy board game considered computationally difficult, compared to chess. Because of the size and number of possible combinations, computers don't have an easy way to exhaustively search for the best move. Still, they are getting better and better playing it.
- [Megan is sitting at a computer, and Cueball is standing behind her.]
- Megan: Looks like computers will beat humans at Go pretty soon.
- Cueball: Wow.
- Cueball: That's the last of the big ones.
- Megan: Yeah.
- Cueball: Well, at least humans are still better at, uh,
- Cueball: Coming up with reassuring parables about things humans are better at?
- Megan: Hmm.
- type type
- Megan: I made a Python script that generates thousands of reassuring parables per second.
- Cueball: Dammit.
- Computer: Computers will never understand a sonnet Computers will never enjoy a salad comp—
add a comment! ⋅ refresh comments!
Does anyone know of any specific Go program/progress this comic is referring to? Nothing on Slashdot prior to the comic, so unless it's just looking forward I don't know of any current events it's referring to. 184.108.40.206 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- No specific program that can compete with Dan players yet. But when the problem was started in the 80s, computers couldn't even agree the game was over without giving up a good sum of points. 10 years ago, the best supercomputer was outclassed by a trainee. But now, all the current algorithms can match a decent player. The Deep Blue of Go will probably come within 5 years.220.127.116.11 18:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Panel 2 seems to be set up as a reference to 894: Progeny. 18.104.22.168 07:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems that there's been progress since 1002: Game AIs 22.214.171.124 09:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I am reminded of Isaac Asimov's comment: "It always amuses me to hear some perfectly ordinary human being say that a computer 'can't compose a symphony', as though he himself could." SteveMB (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The tooltip text is a reminder that PCs become to be obsolete as well, I think. 126.96.36.199 11:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Is the Dell Inspiron supposed to be quietly amusing humans, which it might be, or itself? I don't think it can be amusing itself. Jb (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that the screensaver thing is in itself a reference to futility, as screensavers are getting more obsolete with every flatscreen there is - although people are still using them to no avail. 188.8.131.52 16:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Screensavers are more of a security tool now, as they can be set up to require login credentials to resume work. Gardnertoo (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
What is that truncated word supposed to be after salad? Salad compost? Salad component? You don't win friends with salad compared to a BBBQ? 184.108.40.206 20:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's "computers," beginning the next reassuring expression. 220.127.116.11 01:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
It’s shurely no coincidence that megan makes a python script: http://xkcd.com/353/ --18.104.22.168 09:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Haha. https://www.khanacademy.org/cs/sentence-generator/2038602492 22.214.171.124 10:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Shih-Chieh+Huang 126.96.36.199 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Actually, the screen saver being obsolete is not true. I have an LCD monitor here that has a faint, but still distinctly visible Windows XP taskbar with a very blurry clock when displaying black. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_persistence
Lennartgoosens (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- You can simply set a timeout for the display to turn off to avoid this (the same timeout as you would set for a screensaver). I have clarified that in the explanation. STEN (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The screensaver is not obsolete; the years-old Dell that has been running it (and possibly being amused by it) is obsolete. No other reading of the title text can be justified. 188.8.131.52 09:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why computers can "never" do certain things. I mean, humans can do those things, so its just a sensory inputs and processing, and the structure that gets built to understand it. The first step though, is to figure out why we do those things so we can replicate it elsewhere. -Pennpenn 184.108.40.206 03:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're assuming that everything humans do is algorithmic. Every computer scientist agrees with you, and almost every neurologist, and the vast majority of cognitive scientists. But a few physicists and a lot of philosophers disagree. If human minds are actually doing something that requires quantum computing (as Penrose believes), or that's impossible even with quantum computing (as Searle claims not to believe but keeps ending up arguing for), then... Well, then we're wrong about the last century or so of knowledge, and we've got bigger problems than AI anyway.... 220.127.116.11 09:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to side more with computer experts, neurologists, and cognitive experts over physicists and philosophers on the subject of computer consciousness, cognition, and capacity (especially given my opinion that most philosophy is self-indulgent wankery by people with nothing better to do). Also I didn't preclude quantum computing from the options here. If human neurological functions require quantum level computing, then that's what it'll take. -Pennpenn 18.104.22.168 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)