I wish that the superconductor debacle (and many others) had taught people critical thinking and skepticism. And yet this is the #1 post on HN right now.
Doesn't it make sense to give some visibility to such claims so they can be verified? I would think a lot of people on HN are equipped to take part in this informally.
But I agree with you that the title is too categorical and should be updated.
In contrast, this is not spouting a revolution in physics, but a mathematical puzzle that is mostly trivia. I suspect that the best computer Othello algorithm can already trounce a human.
"Solving" a game is not "trivia" or a "puzzle". It's an actual mathematical problem that requires nontrivial proofs for nontrivial games. Think about it: a game as "simple" as checkers was only solved in 2007.
> I suspect that the best computer Othello algorithm can already trounce a human.
That's a completely different problem. Chess computers are much, much better than humans, but chess is far from being solved.
How hard a game is to "solve" at least using traditional algorithmic techniques is related to its search space. That is a combination of the length of the game and the number of possible moves in each position (ply and branching factor). Chess has more possible positions than exist atoms in the universe by some estimates. Checkers has a tractable, for modern supercomputers, 500 billion possible positions with about a ~6 branching factor over an average of ~50 ply games.
Othello is several orders of magnitude more complex than checkers but not quite at the level of chess. So, this is a big claim. It's by no means trivial.
I don't think anyone was saying it's easy, just that they didn't think it was very useful to know.
> It's not obvious to me that othello is much more complicated than checkers.
How is that not saying it's trivial when the context is a thread mentioning that Checkers has already been solved.
They then went on to qualify their statement with the information that they don't specifically remember the rules of Othello. In a discussion held in good faith, this should be assumed to be an invitation to add additional insight as to why Othello might be more complicated.
You either know the reason why and didn't state it, or believe it's more complicated based on authorities you trust and didn't relate that and instead stated it authoritatively, or don't know it at all and misrepresented it. None of those are very useful for discussion. The former two are easy to rectify by explaining, qualifying, or referring someone to additional info though, and would have been a more useful way to respond.
Ultimately though, it sort of feels like you're reaching for an additional interpretation that makes an earlier misinterpretation still valid, when you could just say "oops. Most of my comment still stands as accurate, but I guess I misinterpreted your point."
Edit: from looking at you profile, it appears you are a CS professor. Perhaps part of the issue is context. This is a public forum, not a classroom, and while in a classroom your statements can be taken with an assumed authority, nobody necessarily knows that about you here when you post, so some additional qualification of your statements or background may be warranted.
I guess you're either in a frame of mind you can accept it as it was meant or you aren't.
I think the OP was saying that since Checkers is solved and they "think" Othello is similar it would be easy to solve, implying that since we can do one we can do the other. I was disputing that notion.
Ok, so, do you trust everything posted on the Internet until you verify it?
I really think "distrust but verify" is a heck of a better rule, unless your source has a really solid track record.
Given that most papers don't replicate, and most hype ends up BS, "don't trust until it's verified" is a much better rule.
No one has said you’re not allowed to be excited if you want. Just like GP is allowed to be a wet blanket if they want.
Speaking of “get over yourself.” I’m so tired of this “if you don’t completely validate and elevate my feelings then you’re bad/mean and preventing me from feeling what I want” crap. God forbid anyone ever disagree with you.
Some people are looking for facts and science, and some are looking for enthusiasm and excitement. Can't discount either one, I suppose.
People getting each other excited by pretending fiction is reality is called religion. That's fine if people are honest about it.
My admonition "get over yourself" is a response to this ridiculous idea that science should be a joyless affair. It isn't, and must not be. Historically, fuddy-duddy downers don't make the big discovaries.