Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by argonaut 3577 days ago
There is irony in trying to refute my single expert opinion with another single expert opinion (via an article).

Reply to below: You're the one asserting that experts thought Go wouldn't be dominated by computers for a long time. The burden of proof lies on you. "Some experts thought it would happen by now, some didn't, there was no consensus" doesn't have quite the ring to it!
2 comments
ThomPete 3577 days ago
No the irony is that you dont see I gave you both.

I gave you both an expert and and an article claiming backing my claim up.

Find me on single article claiming that it's common knowledge that Go would beat a human soon back then and you have me.

Until then I am pretty confident the main consensus was as I claimed and which is my main point.

We mostly underestimate how fast this is moving and it's not only laymen who get it wrong, many experts do to.

link
ThomPete 3577 days ago
I have never said anything about experts. I have talked about general consensus which includes experts.

You have provided on example, ONE of someone who believed it would happen.

I have provided one expert plus articles saying it wouldn't happen, plus you can google and find plenty of articles that said we wouldn't get it for a long time.

You cannot find a single example of articles which are claiming that it's was a general consensus we would beat Go.

And so you are the one coming up short not me. My claim is not controversial neither have you shown it is.

link
2bitencryption 3577 days ago
Point for ThomPete on this one. I can find many more sources citing experts pegging computer go at a decade+ off, compared to those who thought we would have it by now.

However, points to argonaut for doing his best Dijkstra impersonation.

'I don't know how many of you have ever met Dijkstra, but you probably know that arrogance in computer science is measured in nano-Dijkstras.' - Alan Kay

link