Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ping-pong robot beats top-level human players

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 280 posts

Re: Ping-pong robot beats top-level human players

#271

Post by dyauspitr »

vachina wrote: post #232
dyauspitr wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ah yes, China has a track record of invading countries. Claims on Taiwan. Building fake islands in the South China Sea. Encroaching on the Siachen glacier. Attempting to rename Indian states. Port capture in poor nations through default. They have plenty of expansionist tendencies, it’s just early in the game…

Sounds benign compared the kind of shit the Americans do.

China has been “advanced” for a handful of years now. It’s going to get a lot worse because conscience is a throwaway concept for them when it comes to achieving outcomes.

Re: Ping-pong robot beats top-level human players

#272

Post by Markoff »

phtrivier wrote: post #267
Markoff wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah geez, again this China invading Taiwan nonsense, China ain't USA, Israel or Russia attacking sovereign countries, they just use money to take over, they will do exactly same with Taiwan. Eventually Taiwanese people will figure out that siding with agressive country run by crazy old men is worse option than siding with China. China has all time in the world not being run by crazies with 5 year election terms rushin…

I suppose the Tibetan people would have a different opinion. But it's true that China has not fought as many war as the US, UK or France in the past decades. Which is actually part of the enigma : if China decided to use a window of opportunity to invade a neighbor (and they have claims on Taiwan, they keep telling the world they have claims on Taiwan, and they keep preparing their navy to invade Taiwan, so it's not…

Tibet is part of China for hundreds of years (1720–1912) with short period exemption (1912–1951), people who think China just suddenly invaded Tibet in 1951 out of blue are delusional or should learn history

btw. just because you hear loud minority (?) of Tibetan people unhappy with China's rule doesn't mean there is not big part of them who have no problem with benefitting from being part of China rather than let's say India/Nepal

Re: Ping-pong robot beats top-level human players

#273

Post by hatthew »

phtrivier wrote: post #263
hatthew wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If war is mostly played out from a disrance, will years of playing RTS give South Korea an edge ? Not sure if this is serious, but RTS skills are different from real-world battlefield skills. Macro is completely different, and while micro skills might be slightly transferrable, computers are so much better that no human will ever be microing real units on a real battlefield.

This was tongue in cheek, yes. That being said, "the Russian army will be driven to a virtual stalemate by a former comedian leading a decentralized group of startups remote-controlling handmade Wall-E clones equiped with machine guns, while the former real tv anchor leading the US army helps the Russian side to distract people from the pedophile ring he did _not_ take part in" would have sound very tongue on cheek,…

haha agreed

Re: Ping-pong robot beats top-level human players

#274

Post by AlecSchueler »

phtrivier wrote: post #260
AlecSchueler wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China needs to invade Taiwan > It's clear that China is going to use tech I hear this all the time but the invasion never seems to come. Is it just western projection at this point?

It's not "western projection" to say that China _wants_ to get Taiwan at some point. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj94y87k2ljo Given how the "peaceful" way failed in the last few decades, it's not insane to assume they might try a good old fashion invasion at some point. From what I understand (as in "from what William Spaniel says"), given the weather constraints, it's something to look at closely every April a…

What do you want me to take from your BBC article? Their mutual and explicit commitments to peace?

> it's something to look at closely every April and October. Seems like we're good for this April

So the rationale for the belief is that a specific American scholar says it. And what he says is "it could happen any time but so far we've always been lucky."

Honestly without any actual reasoning or evidence to back that up it's difficult to take it any more seriously than a tarot reading.

The invasion of Greenland seems much more likely.

Re: Ping-pong robot beats top-level human players

#275

Post by vachina »

dyauspitr wrote: post #271
vachina wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds benign compared the kind of shit the Americans do.

China has been “advanced” for a handful of years now. It’s going to get a lot worse because conscience is a throwaway concept for them when it comes to achieving outcomes.

Not good to make assumptions of people you don't really know about.

Re: Ping-pong robot beats top-level human players

#276

Post by throw4847285 »

antonvs wrote: post #258
throw4847285 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well in this case it was made by and for Japanese speakers.

I guess Russians are scary for everyone. Including Russians, I assume.

All of my Russian friends briefly become terrified when they pass by a mirror, and have to regain their composure.

Re: Ping-pong robot beats top-level human players

#277

Post by phtrivier »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #114
DennisP wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters quite a bit. If your drone costs $1000, you can build a thousand times more of them than if a drone costs $1M. As the saying goes, quantity has a quality all its own. This is a lesson the US has yet to learn, and its military drones are really expensive. Ukraine learned it by necessity, and now it's building millions of drones annually.

I think what your parent commenter means is that, if the application is warlike or nefarious, them the money will be found. If, on the other hand, it is humanitarian, then every penny will be counted.

I disagree. If your charitable application is profitable, it will get funded.

Now, people will hate you for doing a "good" thing for money (exhibit A : name any pharma company selling the drugs that keep people alive ; that company is going to get called a "cynical shill" given enough profit.)

It just happens that the bad things are often highly profitable, so the investors will pour the pensioners money in (because the pension money must flow.)

That being said, the best way to get funded is not for your app to be good or bad, but to be massively fun. Sell tulips, video games and Céline Dion tickets. Find a way to divert 10% of the benefits to a charity.

Re: Ping-pong robot beats top-level human players

#278

Post by tgv »

nilslindemann wrote: post #268
tgv wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI is a phantom. If (when?) AI takes over and everyone is put on UBI, the problems we'll deem important will be finding enough food to survive.

Does UBI not mean that one does _not_ have to worry about finding enough food to survive?

If you follow that definition, it can (and will) stop existing. Don't count on Sam Altman to keep your groceries affordable.

Re: Ping-pong robot beats top-level human players

#280

Post by nilslindemann »

tgv wrote: post #278
nilslindemann wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does UBI not mean that one does _not_ have to worry about finding enough food to survive?

If you follow that definition, it can (and will) stop existing. Don't count on Sam Altman to keep your groceries affordable.

When I talk about Universal basic income, I mean that steps are taken that it exists. Otherwise, it is something else with another name.
Post reply on HN