Genady

That was what I've said, wasn't it:

I agree that there is no reason that something artificial can't recreate our creativity. The question is, are computers as we know them capable for that, or we'll need different underlying principles?

Yes. Not "us all", not always "two", and not always a "battle."

The Old Cherokee is being simplistic to a degree of being wrong. But, it is perhaps OK as a starter for a little kid.

No. But the topic is, what computers can't do for us. And sometimes a different output is good.

"Which is more rational to believe without evidence: Something that makes you happy or something that makes you laugh?" -- Equal. "Dawkins can't prove that God doesn't exist, yet he's happy to point the finger and claim, they're delusional." -- He doesn't need to. See above. Also, see your own B. Russell's quote: "...as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake." "karma for instance is practically Newtonian" -- I disagree.

You're right. And this is a limitation. I think that one big difference is this: in a game there exists a prescription for how to generate all possible moves; there is no such a prescription in real world.

I agree. The subtlety is, that we can make it to do just that, what ever that is, e.g. your scenario above. And it will be doing just that forever. The just that includes a possibility to modify that in some ways. Then, it will be modifying that in these same ways forever...

Thank you. Got it. No problem.

What technique do they use to do it?

"To brainwash a massive amount of people" - like the Russian government does? Thanks.

To train the DDN they "use[d] the RL policy network to play more than 30 million games." How many games a human master plays or studies in their training?

Conspiracy? Where is it from?

I don't assume that you intentionally lie. No, it never happened to me. Even when some contents change, like song lyrics, there are always previous versions around.

I don't believe it.

Of course they know Russian - Russian was the main language in all USSR, for 70+ years. I know Russian, too, it is my first language, although I'm not Russian and was not born in Russia. Not a Slav either.

Yes, a probabilistic classification function of DNN is reminiscent of strategic principles. Here is another impressive application, not a game based: "a new AI system that can create realistic images and art from a description in natural language."

I'm not sure deep neural networks work by pure combinatorics, if-then sequences. I'd rather compare them to developing, during learning stage, and then applying strategic principles. Not "conceptual", this means something different to me, but strategic.

And what is the difference between quantum mechanics and relativity?

Sorry, can't say anything about Taoism, don't know. But I know a lot about Marxism. Is it a religion?

It is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a thing to be a religion. Another necessary condition is, belief in supernatural. Atheism doesn't have that.

In what way are viruses helpful to us?

Religion is not just any belief. It has to include a belief in a supernatural to be a religion. That's why atheism is not a religion.

Yes, certainly not the whole story.

Perhaps I need to clarify that I don't mean that every task in a real life setting is a different kind of task to playing games. I rather think that there is always a task in real life setting which is different. Then we'll make a computer to cover that kind. And then there will be another, and so on.