^{Source / Извор: LiChess.com}

I’m fed up with idiots who has their hair on fire about how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is going to kill us all. It won’t, because Artificial Intelligence doesn’t exist. Natural stupidity is the real danger…

We will begin this series with a statement that I have made before: The sinister Centralized Hierarchical Political Matrix controls the people by imposing terminology that has nothing to do with the truth, and which creates a virtual world – if you accept the terminology, you have accepted to live in a lie!

We will return to this statement throughout the series. To begin with, in this text we will make an introduction to the demystification of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ by dispelling the crowning ‘proof’ purported by the people who do not know what they are talking about: “Man can no longer beat a machine in chess!” Nonsense…

This statement implies that chess is a game of intelligence, so according to his interpretation, ‘Artificial Intelligence’ has already surpassed human intelligence. Wrong on at least three counts:

1. Chess is not a game of intelligence, but a game of memory.

2. Intelligence cannot be measured by only one highly abstract game of memory, no matter how complicated it may be.

3. It is not true that man cannot beat a chess machine

For a more detailed explanation of the first point, just follow the link – the text is in English.

Regarding the second point – it is easy to see that the machine has no intelligence from the following example. This is a game played on LiChess between users smurfo (white) and ukchessbomber (black). After the 28th move, the following position was created:

Сит сам идиота којима гори коса како ће нас вештачка интелигенција (ВИ) све побити. Неће, јер вештачка интелигенција не постоји. Природна глупост истинска је опасност…

Почећемо ову серију констатацијом коју сам раније већ постављао: Злокобна Централизована Хијерархијска Политичка Матрица управља људима наметањем терминологије која нема везе са истином, и којом се ствара виртуелни свет – ако прихватите терминологију, прихватили сте да живите у лажи!

Вратићемо се на ову констатацију током серије. За почетак, у овом тексту ћемо направити увод у демистификацију ‘вештачке интелигенције’ растурајући крунски ‘аргуменат’ људи који не знају о чему говоре: „Човек више не може да победи машину у шаху!” Глупости…

У овој изјави имплицира се да је шах игра интелигенције, па је према њиховом тумачењу, ‘вештачка интелигенција’ већ надмашила људску. Погрешно у најмање три тачке:

1. Шах није игра интелигенције, него игра меморије.

2. Интелигенција се не може мерити само једном високо апстрактном игром меморије, ма колико компликована била.

3. Није тачно да човек не може да победи шаховску машину

За детаљније објашњење прве тачке просто пратите линк – текст је на енглеском.

Што се друге тачке тиче – лако је видети да машина нема интелигенцију из следећег примера. У питању је партија одиграна на Личесу између корисника smurfo (бели) и ukchessbomber (црни). После 28. потеза настала је следећа позиција:

Source / Извор: LiChess

Even the average chess beginner will easily judge this position as completely winning for white. However, the strongest chess machine in the world at the moment – Stockfish – declares this position at the first glance as convincingly better for black, and even by 5.6 points! Roughly the rook and pawn advantage. Then, after some ‘thinking’, Stockfish changes his ‘mind’ and declared the position – a draw!

The example makes it perfectly clear that there is no intelligence involved. Chess machines have two elements: Database and Search Module. The power of the chess machine depends on the amount of information (positions) in the database, on the efficiency of the search algorithm and on the processing power of the platform on which the search algorithm is executed. So there is no intelligence inside it, except the one which the programmers of the machine had. The machine itself cannot think or learn. It only knows how to enter every new game that is played on Lichess into the database, and thus make it available to the search module.

It is a fairly simple concept of an expert system. Simple because it is based on a relatively small number of clear rules that only need to be executed in the shortest possible time.

Knowing this, can we find a weak point in that expert system? Of course! It’s not true that people can’t beat him – it’s just that whenever you beat him, you’re actually leaving him with a new data input that the system will use in the his database so that he can’t be defeated the same way next time.

Here's how Jonathan Schrantz, a chess instructor from Saint Louis, a man who doesn't even have a FIDE rating, beats him. On LiChess, his account is zolpi, and he has a strong National Master rating, around 2300 ELO points. He uses unusual opening gambits, and a short time control that doesn’t allow the machine too much time to search the base. Here’s an example:

Чак и просечан шаховски почетник лако ће ову позицију проценити као потпуно добијену за белог. Међутим, најјача шаховска машина на свету у овом тренутку – Стокфиш – ову позицију у старту проглашава као убедљиво бољу за црног, и то чак за 5,6 поена! Отприлике предност топа и пешака. Затим, после одређеног ‘размишљања’, предомисли се и позицију прогласи за – реми!

Пример савршено јасно показује да ту нема никакве интелигенције. Машине за играње шаха имају два елемента: Базу података и Модул за претраживање. Снага шаховске машине зависи од количине информација (позиција) у бази, од ефикасности алгоритма за претраживање и од процесорске снаге на коме се алгоритам за претраживање извршава. Дакле, ту нема никакве интелигенције осим оне коју су имали програмери машине. Сама машина не уме да размишља нити да учи. Она једино уме да сваку нову партију која се на Личесу одигра унесе у базу, и тако је учини доступном модулу за претраживање.

У питању је једноставан концепт експертског система. Једноставан јер је заснован на релативно малом броју јасних правила које само треба извршити у што краћем року.

Знајући ово, можемо ли том експертском систему наћи слабу тачку? Наравно! Није тачно да људи не могу да га победе – тачно је само да кадгод га победите, ви му заправо остављате податке које ће он искористити у бази тако да следећи пут више не буде могуће победити га на исти начин.

Ево како га побеђује Џонатан Шранц, тренер из Сент Луиса, човек који чак нема ни ФИДЕ рејтинг. На Личесу његов налог је zolpi, и има рејтинг јаког ФИДЕ мајстора, око 2300 ЕЛО поена. Он користи неуобичајене гамбите у отварању, и кратку временску контролу која не допушта машини превише времена за претраживање базе. Ево примера:

Duration / Трајање: 11:09

zolpi vs. Stockfish (level 8)^{Lichess Casual Blitz game (3 min.), September 12th, 2020
Bishop's Opening: Urusov Gambit, Keidansky Gambit}

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Qxd4 Nf6 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. Qh4 d6 8. Bg5 Be7 9. O-O-O Be6 10. Rhe1 Qd7 11. Bb5 h6 12. Ne5 Ng4 13. Bxe7 Ngxe5 14. Bxd6 cxd6 15. Rxe5 Rd8 16. Re3 O-O 17. Ne4 Qc7?? … (Game is practically over at this point) … 18. Nf6+ Kh8 19. Qe4 g6 20. Qh4 Kg7 21. Bxc6 Qxc6 22. Qd4 Rg8 23. Ng4+ Kh7 24. Rxe6 Qc5 25. Nf6+ Kh8 26. Qxc5 dxc5 27. Rxd8 Rxd8 28. Re8+ Rxe8 29. Nxe8 b6 30. Nd6 Kg7 31. Nc8 Kf6 32. Kd2 Ke6 33. Nxa7 Kd7 34. Kd3 Kc7 35. Nb5+ Kc6 36. c4 f5 37. Ke3 g5 38. h3 Kd7 39. g4 fxg4 40. hxg4 Kc6 41. Ke4 Kd7 42. Kd5 Ke7 43. Kc6 Kf6 44. Kxb6 h5 45. gxh5 g4 46. Kxc5 Kg5 47. a4 Kf5 48. a5 Kg5 49. a6 Kxh5 50. a7 g3 51. fxg3 Kg4 52. a8=Q Kh3 53. g4 Kh4 54. g5 Kh5 55. g6 Kxg6 56. Qf3 Kg5 57. Nd4 Kh4 58. b4 Kg5 59. b5 Kh4 60. b6 Kg5 61. b7 Kh4 62. b8=Q Kg5 63. Qbg3+ Kh6 64. Qh1# 1-0

And he is not an exception who can do this. Anna Kramling used her Cow opening and the analysis she got from that same Stockfish – to find its weak spot!

И није он изузетак који ово може да изведе. Ана Крамлинг користила је своје Кравље отварање и анализу коју је добила од истог тог Стокфиша – да му нађе слабу тачку!

Duration / Трајање: 18:32

This chess-like introduction was necessary for the sake of the point – we are certainly not talking about Artificial Intelligence, but about a highly developed expert system.

In the following posts, we will present what features true artificial intelligence should have, the dangers looming behind the developed expert system, we’ll talk about the philosophical-ethical aspects of development, and most importantly, answering the question: Why would someone stick a false label that says 'Artificial Intelligence' on the developed expert system?

Stay tuned!

Овај шаховски увод био је неопходан ради поенте – не ради се ни о каквој вештачкој интелигенцији, него о веома развијеном експертском систему.

У наредним наставцима описаћемо како би изгледала права вештачка интелигенција, изнећемо опасности које прете од развијених експертских система, о филозофско-етичким аспектима развоја, и најважније питање: Зашто би неко на развијени експертски систем лепио лажну етикету на којој пише ‘Вештачка интелигенција’?

Останите с нама!

Never forget Julian Assange was the first to expose global criminals
Не заборавите да је Џулијан Асанж први разоткрио глобалнe злочинце

* * *

Archive of texts:

Archive of texts on the steps to a Great WAR (2021)

Archive of texts on the steps to a Great WAR (2020)

Archive of texts on the steps to a Great WAR (2019)

Archive of texts on the steps to a Great WAR (2018)

Access Hive through Ecency
Приступите Хајву кроз Ecency

Access Hive through On Board
Приступите Хајву кроз On Board

Bastyon.com

Google detox starts here!

Universal Basic Income

Check out ABRA and easily invest in 28 cryptocurrencies or BIT10, an index of the top cryptos. Use this link to sign up and get $25 in free bitcoin after your first Bank/Amex deposit, or 1.5% cash back when you exchange cryptos

1GZQG69sEKiMXKgGw9TcGcUCBoC4sC1ZYp

Sort:

Trending

[-]

valued-customer (73) last year (edited)

Well stated. I also agree that intelligence is not what LLMs or Stable Diffusion are, but merely large collections of samples from which to draw and a set of algorithms by which to weight samples and choose between them. The very good job these AIs do reflects the expertise of their creators, not intelligence. Some folks find the idea of AGI terrifying, and I try to reassure them that such a thing will never be created.

Consciousness has been shown to not arise in the brain. Brains do moderate consciousness, but aren't the source of it. Consciousness has been shown to be a collective, multi-species event, because our gut fauna participate in our thoughts. This shows that consciousness does not arise in brains, because our single celled gut fauna don't have brains. Other single celled creatures have been shown to learn and make decisions, also despite not having brains. A really weird creature called a slime mold, for example.

We have very limited tools for detecting consciousness. While living things have electrical fields, these fields aren't consciousness, or we could make all kinds of changes to them using our extensive knowledge of how to manipulate electricity. We can only make determinations if a thing is conscious or not based on it's actions, and we know that we are conscious even when we are prevented by circumstances from acting, such as when we're asleep, or in a coma. So we really don't detect consciousness at all, but secondary effects caused by consciousness. Given that limitation how could we tell if a tree, that has no means of acting on a scale we can detect, is conscious or not? What reason do we have to suspect that consciousness is limited to things that have the ability to act? How could we test to see if a tree, or a rock, for that matter, are conscious?

The short answer is that we cannot. We simply don't know how to detect consciousness at all, because we don't have any idea what it actually is.

Given that people trying to create Artificial Intelligence are trying to mimic brains to do so, they're not going to create consciousness by doing that because brains don't create consciousness. Researchers into AI are really handicapped by the facts that we don't know what consciousness is, where it comes from, why it eventuates at all, and a whole slew of other things. It's like trying to make a nuclear reactor without even knowing what causes radioactivity. It's about as likely as 100 monkeys given treats for banging keys on typewriters turning out the works of Shakespeare. It's theoretically possible, but the probability of it happening is so small that it is practically impossible. It's far less likely than winning the lotto, for example.

Thanks!

$0.35

3 votes

lighteye (76) last year

You should have this comment as your own separate post, @valued-customer :)

$0.02

valued-customer (73) last year

Are you unhappy I left this as a comment on your post? I meant to convey agreement with you, but if you prefer I do not comment I need to consider your wishes.

2 votes

woelfchen (72) last year

I think it is meant as compliment, cuz the comment is good and worth an own post :)

$0.04

I hope so. Sometimes I seem to tickle his angry bone instead of the funny bone, so I ask.

$0.00

and even if so, which again also just makes us all very human :>

1 vote

No, no, on the contrary – I am very glad you did it @valued-customer. I said that because comment was long and thoughtful enough to be a separate post. More people would read it as your blog post :)

Ok. I am happy enough to comment here. Your contributions to my understanding would be difficult to overstate. I do not post for money, but to gain understanding, and I am well paid here, on your blog.

pizzabot (58) last year

PIZZA!

$PIZZA slices delivered:
@pixresteemer_(1/5) tipped @lighteye

atma.love (71) last year (edited)

Very insightful post. Thanks for sharing. i have Bookmarked this post (on @ecency) so i receive a notification of additional comments (a very useful and probably underused feature). Will you add a comment with link to next in the series, please?

Ps.
#matrix8fixesthis (when sufficient couragous souls join and help get it off the ground). Will you be One?

Reading the following key posts will give an overall picture of #TheMatrix8Solution:

The Matrix-8 Solution White Paper (Abstract & Part 1).
There are seven more parts to the white paper, 4 of which have been published and can be found in the #Hive community, link below.
Matrix-8 Tokenomics - KLU tokens
Trusted Reputation
Short Video Slideshow depicting the Matrix-8 Concentrated Consensus Mechanism

Please Join the Matrix-8 New Age DApps community to read additional posts and to be notified if you wish of new cont

pixresteemer (70) last year

Bang, I did it again... I just rehived your post!Week 157 of my contest just started...you can now check the winners of the previous week!!PIZZA₆

THE WAR: Debunking ‘AI’ – Chess Intro (Part I of III) [eng/срп] РАТ: Демистификација ‘ВИ’ – Шаховски увод (део I од III)

I’m fed up with idiots who has their hair on fire about how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is going to kill us all. It won’t, because Artificial Intelligence doesn’t exist. Natural stupidity is the real danger…

Duration / Трајање: 11:09

Duration / Трајање: 18:32

Stay tuned!

Останите с нама!

* * *

Related posts / Повезани текстови:

* * *

Archive of texts: