Hacker News Reader

As Mike Tyson said "a computer might win a chess match, but he would lose in boxing ring".

A tank would win in the boxking ring, but it would lose a chess match.

You could put a computer inside of a tank and win both, which is pretty much AGI.

That doesn't even make sense. If we're going to compare apples to apples, you'll either have to remove the human's brain from his body and place it in the ring with the computer, or give the computer a proper body.

I don't see the human winning in either case.

If the rules are that you have to use a human body, good luck computer.

Considering what our brains were designed for, you could make the argument that chess is just as unfairly biased in a computer's favor as controlling a human body in a boxing match is in the human brain's favor.

Chess was invented long before computer. It's not unfairly biased; it happens to be a particular human endeavor that computers can (relatively) easily be made much better at.

I believe what the great thinker is saying is that he is smarter than a computer because he can bash its blinking lights out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com