<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: THINKING MACHINES ARE GETTING SMARTER</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2009/07/02/thinking-machines-are-getting-smarter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2009/07/02/thinking-machines-are-getting-smarter/</link>
	<description>Yesterday&#039;s tomorrow, today.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:18:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: StanFlouride</title>
		<link>http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2009/07/02/thinking-machines-are-getting-smarter/comment-page-1/#comment-1069525</link>
		<dc:creator>StanFlouride</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:26:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.modernmechanix.com/?p=7924#comment-1069525</guid>
		<description>One of the first computer games I played back in the 1980s was checkers and it had the same obnoxious warning about losing in 5 moves. I assume that beyond that the possible variations is too large a number to make that claim.
 I eventually figured out how to beat the damn thing (probably took 100 games!) and then, as long as I stuck to the same set of moves I always one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the first computer games I played back in the 1980s was checkers and it had the same obnoxious warning about losing in 5 moves. I assume that beyond that the possible variations is too large a number to make that claim.<br />
 I eventually figured out how to beat the damn thing (probably took 100 games!) and then, as long as I stuck to the same set of moves I always one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2009/07/02/thinking-machines-are-getting-smarter/comment-page-1/#comment-1069518</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.modernmechanix.com/?p=7924#comment-1069518</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve always preferred the archaic term &#039;robot brain&#039; over &#039;computer&#039;. It&#039;s just cooler somehow, living in a society filled with robot brains. :D</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve always preferred the archaic term &#8216;robot brain&#8217; over &#8216;computer&#8217;. It&#8217;s just cooler somehow, living in a society filled with robot brains. <img src='http://blog.modernmechanix.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: scud</title>
		<link>http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2009/07/02/thinking-machines-are-getting-smarter/comment-page-1/#comment-1069503</link>
		<dc:creator>scud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:11:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.modernmechanix.com/?p=7924#comment-1069503</guid>
		<description>The methods they view as smart have been more or less abandoned by scientists years ago. Today computers are fast enough to check all possibilities in a game, but this is not the way to go for smart or intelligent computers. Checking every possibility and selecting the best is used only to compare with other methods (if they found the best answer). For checkers it would be more like... q-learning maybe?

They call their machines smart/intelligent and today some people also call them so - but computers are now as far from AI as they were 50 years ago. They may be autonomous, they may be fast, they may even learn - but they are not smart or intelligent. Maybe in another 50 years...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The methods they view as smart have been more or less abandoned by scientists years ago. Today computers are fast enough to check all possibilities in a game, but this is not the way to go for smart or intelligent computers. Checking every possibility and selecting the best is used only to compare with other methods (if they found the best answer). For checkers it would be more like&#8230; q-learning maybe?</p>
<p>They call their machines smart/intelligent and today some people also call them so &#8211; but computers are now as far from AI as they were 50 years ago. They may be autonomous, they may be fast, they may even learn &#8211; but they are not smart or intelligent. Maybe in another 50 years&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LightningRose</title>
		<link>http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2009/07/02/thinking-machines-are-getting-smarter/comment-page-1/#comment-1069497</link>
		<dc:creator>LightningRose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:27:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.modernmechanix.com/?p=7924#comment-1069497</guid>
		<description>The Zonolite insulation advertised on page 4 likely contains asbestos. Oh joy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiculite#Controversy_over_health_risks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Zonolite insulation advertised on page 4 likely contains asbestos. Oh joy.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiculite#Controversy_over_health_risks" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V.....alth_risks</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
