[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> Anybody who was clinging on to the idea that well, the machines can't really play chess, because technically there do seem to be a few humans who are better, was screwed the moment the machines begin routinely beating grand masters.

Who was "clinging on to the idea that well, the machines can't really play chess" and when was that?

[janalsncm]

Made an account so I could mention David Levy’s infamous bet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Levy_(chess_player)#Co...

That’s the way it is with AI: first people say X is impossible for computers, then they say X is hard, then they say X doesn’t work for certain edge cases, then they say we’ve known all along that computers could do X.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Why "infamous"? In any case, Levy did win his bet when there had been no computer chess engine that could beat him in ten years after betting against McCarthy and Michie [1]. Despite that he acknowledge that chess engines had improved further than he had thought:

>> Levy wrote, "I had proved that my 1968 assessment had been correct, but on the other hand my opponent in this match was very, very much stronger than I had thought possible when I started the bet."[37] He observed that, "Now nothing would surprise me (very much)."[38]

(Edit: the quote is from your WP link.)

So that at least really does not match the pattern you mention. Levy's evaluation of chess engines was pretty much in the water, all the way up to Kasparov's loss to Deep Blue. As far as I can tell he never said anything like "the machines can't really play chess" as the OP suggested. He just made a prediction about how much they could advance in ten years. And he was right.

I would therefore like more justification for your assertion that "that's the way it is in AI". I would also like a clarification: who are the "people" who say all those things? How representative are they of experts and researchers?

Who makes all those naive predictions about the impossibility of AI that are later proven wrong? For the time being, it seems that naive predictions can be traced more directly to luminaries of the field, like Alan Turing or Marvin Minsky [2], who predict that AI is "just around the corner", rather than skeptics and naysayers who say it wont' happen, as is usually suggested.

And then of course, there's Rodney Brooks' dated predictions, so far standing the test of time (although that's a short time!) [3].

_______________

[1] Totally coincidentally, Donald Michie was my thesis advisor's thesis advisor, so I'm, like, his academic grandchild.

[2] See: https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/opinions/AI-progress.htm...

"In 1958, Herbert Simon and Allen Newell wrote, “within ten years a digital computer will be the world’s chess champion”; note that this is 10 years before Levy and McCarthy's bet.

[3] https://rodneybrooks.com/predictions-scorecard-2022-january-...

[dougabug]

Well, Levy won the bet, but just barely. More importantly, his dismissive attitude towards AI mastering chess (“[…] the idea of an electronic world champion belongs only in the pages of a science fiction book.”) was deeply shaken.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Sure, but I just think it's all a bit more nuancend than the way the OPs make it to be. There's always a lot of speculation that goes both ways: either AI is just around the corner, or it's never gonna happen. And there's plenty of opinions and educated guesses in the middle, always.