My definition of intelligence is: General competence at winning games. Do you have a twittable one?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Winning at games is a criterion. How is "maximization of the order of the intelligible" to be judged?
1 reply 0 retweets 21 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
No. My concept of winning at games is still occupying the battlefield after the smoke has cleared.
4 replies 2 retweets 27 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
"Logic and computation" have if they win. (Which I accept is likely -- as long as they're kept cold -- which is the concrete strategic quandary.)
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @apologiesltd
complex systems don't tend toward decidable equilibria -- there's not much 'winning' to be had out there.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @cavvia @apologiesltd
Remaining in the game is winning, realistically. And there's a lot of losing out there.
6:43 PM - 17 Nov 2018
0 replies
0 retweets
3 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.