1875: Computers vs Humans

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 15:53, 11 August 2017 by (talk) (Explanation)
Jump to: navigation, search
Computers vs Humans
It's hard to train deep learning algorithms when most of the positive feedback they get is sarcastic.
Title text: It's hard to train deep learning algorithms when most of the positive feedback they get is sarcastic.


Ambox notice.png This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Early explanation. Keep on expanding, and keep this tag until the explanation is good enough.
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

Cueball's laptop smugly crows to its owner about how computers have proven its intellectual superiority over the squishy humans yet again. Cueball remains nonchalant in the face of this news, and assigns to his laptop an impossible task: learning to become nonchalant themselves. When the laptop announces how much effort it will put into not caring, Cueball points out the contradiction, and further rubs it in by coolly stating that he doesn't even have to try to act the way he acts.


Ambox notice.png This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.

comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!


Definitely related to https://xkcd.com/1263/ and https://xkcd.com/1002/ to a lesser extent. MrNinja (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed and have added both to the explanation. --Kynde (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the bot's version of the {{incomplete}} template param was better… ~AgentMuffin

Wake me up when computers can beat humans in Football (soccer), Football (gridiron), Basketball, Baseball, etc. These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

So far, these kind of contests always work like this: human will pick a goal and formulate rules, then groups of humans spend lot of time programming computer specifically for that goal and then the computer competes against some human. I'm waiting for contest where the human picking a goal would explain the rules to computer the same way he did to human, and no humans would be helping the computer to understand. -- Hkmaly (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Making a computer "not care" for something is impossible, first you need to program the code for the thing and then program the code for the computer to disregard that thing. The computer must care for the thing before trying no to care about it.

On the contrary, I would say making a computer system "care" is harder than making it not care. My computer system does "not care" about ANYTHING, and has never cared, even before I turned it on. When I write any program, the system will blithely execute it, whether it's to perform an infinite loop or divide by zero or do a machine-learning task. The machine acts in as deterministic and uncaring fashion as a water pistol or rock. I throw a rock, and it skips over the surface of a lake, and then sinks.

I will agree that programmers generally care about the output of their program's response to input data (e.g. giving winning moves in Go), but whether the computer succeeds or not, it does not care. The goal is not one adopted by the computer--the goal is given to the programmers who generate computer code to attempt to achieve that goal. The computer follows the algorithm and all the results follow from this and the input data.

[Comet] 07:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)