> Firstly, automobiles are really impressive. Second, with that out the way, these cars are not playing the same game as horses
Yes. That’s why cars don’t compete in equestrian events and horses don’t go to F1 races.
This non-controversial surely? You want different events for humans, humans + computers, and just computers.
Notice that self driving cars have separate race events from both horses and human-driven cars.
The point is that up until now, humans were the best at these competitions, just like horses were the best at racing up until cars came around.
The other commenter is pointing out how ridiculous it would be for someone to downplay the performance of cars because they did it differently from horses. It doesn't matter if they did it using different methods, that fact that the final outcome was better had world-changing ramifications.
The same applies here. Downplaying AI because it has different strengths or plays by different rules is foolish, because that doesn't matter in the real world. People will choose the option that that leads to the better/faster/cheaper outcome, and that option is quickly becoming AI instead of humans - just like cars quickly became the preferred option over horses. And that is crazy to think about.
I feel the main difference is cars can't compress time in the way an array of computers can. I could win this competition with an infinitely parallel array of random characters typed by infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters instantly since one of them would be perfectly right given infinite submissions. When I make my tweet I would pick a single monkey cus I need infinite money to feed my infinite workforce and that's more impressive clearly.
Now obviously it's more impressive as they don't have infinite compute and had finite time but the car only has one entry in each race unless we start getting into some anime ass shit with divergent timelines and one of the cars (and some lesser amount of horses) finishing instantly.
To your last point we don't know that this was cheaper since they don't disclose the cost. I would blindly guess a mechanical turk for the same cost would outperform at least today.
Considering that OpenAI's model got a higher score than any of the world's best collegiate programming teams, I'd guess that a mechanical turk would not do better (even if you gave them quite a bit of time).
In what way did the computer compress time? It completed it in 5 hours and I'm pretty sure they didn't invent a time machine
How long does a single thread take to do an attempt? How long do two threads take? I don't want to assume people reading this forum are children.
This doesn't matter. I don't intend to be rude, of course. I believe this doesn't matter at all.
Yeah I think the only thing OP was passing judgement on is on the competition aspect of it, not the actual achievement of any human or non human participant
That’s how I read it at least - exactly how you put it
I think you missed that the whole point of this race was:
"did we build a vehicle faster than a horse, yes/no?"
Which matters a lot when horses are the fastest land vehicle available. (We're so used to thinking of horses as a quaint and slow mean of transport that maybe we don't realize that for millennia they've been the fastest possible way to get from one place to another.)
> "did we build a vehicle faster than a horse, yes/no?"
Yeah fair. There's also that famous human vs horse race that happens every few years. So far humans keep winning (because it's long distance)
If you're talking about the Man versus Horse Marathon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_versus_Horse_Marathon) it's the other way around. Overwhelmingly the horses win. Only occasionally does the human.
I stand corrected. My memory garbled that. Thanks!