No, any sufficiently advanced A.I can and will outclass humans. For example: there are chess A.I’s that have beaten GM’s as good as Magnus Carlsen on multiple occasions. The better an A.I gets at something the tougher it becomes to counter it. This is one of the biggest risks of A.I development that one day we might make something that makes us seem obsolete. On the positive side that day is really really far.
i have my own opinions on ai, but all of that doesnt matter in relation to cracking denuvo because humans can and do crack it.
i bet everyone with the skills to reverse engineer it has a nice job in cybersecurity (like working at denuvo), instead of cracking video games for some donations.
First: you’re comparing Chess, what’s a super simple algorithm, in what machines already “outclassed humans” like, years ago, with anything humans can do. That’s is simplist and wrong.
Second: until today, the so called Artificial “Intelligence” were only capable of, by consulting a human made big catalogue of many things humans did, reproduce some parts of it or resume a little, what is not that difficult if you have a good synonyms dictionary and tons of human people training you on what is a decent resume and what isn’t. In resume, A.“I.” doesn’t do anything that people didn’t did before, and, when it comes to write texts, it does something objectly worst, in a self-help level of writing. A.“I.” isn’t creative.
Third: still, there are objectly a bunch of works that are under attack by A.“I.”. The thing about this works is that: or they were obviously possible to be automated before, or they are pointless, or they’ve been doing automatically (a.k.a. alienabally) by the workers, or all the above.
Fourth: the big guys who are trying to sell everyone the idea that A.“I.” will “outclass all of us” want to believe that there’s no need for human work to generate income, what’s is materialistically and economically not true at all. They say they dream of a world without hard work, actually they mean a world without us, working class people. But they’re wrong, they are still depending on our existence as a class and always will be until the day there will be no classes anymore.
I don’t know if AI is technically better it’s just different and doesn’t play like a human. Humans hate lossing pieces but AI doesn’t care as long as the outcome is a win.
Newsflash: Humans also sacrifice pieces in chess. Chess engines are mathematical beasts that are designed for these things only. But what is more important: Chess engines also needs to be made by humans.
AI absolutely plays like a human as it’s trained by humans. The only difference is, AI will do the most optimal move, while humans might hesitate. That’s also the reason why it’s bad to put AI into fighter or bomber jets. The AI has a clear goal but a human might struggle to fire at an unknown target. Because the human has to life with the consequences.
No, any sufficiently advanced A.I can and will outclass humans. For example: there are chess A.I’s that have beaten GM’s as good as Magnus Carlsen on multiple occasions. The better an A.I gets at something the tougher it becomes to counter it. This is one of the biggest risks of A.I development that one day we might make something that makes us seem obsolete. On the positive side that day is really really far.
Where between being beaten in chess and making us obsolete do you think we are? Where do you think cracking games is between chess and human mind?
I think your estimation is off by a lot.
ok.
i have my own opinions on ai, but all of that doesnt matter in relation to cracking denuvo because humans can and do crack it.
i bet everyone with the skills to reverse engineer it has a nice job in cybersecurity (like working at denuvo), instead of cracking video games for some donations.
First: you’re comparing Chess, what’s a super simple algorithm, in what machines already “outclassed humans” like, years ago, with anything humans can do. That’s is simplist and wrong.
Second: until today, the so called Artificial “Intelligence” were only capable of, by consulting a human made big catalogue of many things humans did, reproduce some parts of it or resume a little, what is not that difficult if you have a good synonyms dictionary and tons of human people training you on what is a decent resume and what isn’t. In resume, A.“I.” doesn’t do anything that people didn’t did before, and, when it comes to write texts, it does something objectly worst, in a self-help level of writing. A.“I.” isn’t creative.
Third: still, there are objectly a bunch of works that are under attack by A.“I.”. The thing about this works is that: or they were obviously possible to be automated before, or they are pointless, or they’ve been doing automatically (a.k.a. alienabally) by the workers, or all the above.
Fourth: the big guys who are trying to sell everyone the idea that A.“I.” will “outclass all of us” want to believe that there’s no need for human work to generate income, what’s is materialistically and economically not true at all. They say they dream of a world without hard work, actually they mean a world without us, working class people. But they’re wrong, they are still depending on our existence as a class and always will be until the day there will be no classes anymore.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
I don’t know if AI is technically better it’s just different and doesn’t play like a human. Humans hate lossing pieces but AI doesn’t care as long as the outcome is a win.
Newsflash: Humans also sacrifice pieces in chess. Chess engines are mathematical beasts that are designed for these things only. But what is more important: Chess engines also needs to be made by humans.
AI absolutely plays like a human as it’s trained by humans. The only difference is, AI will do the most optimal move, while humans might hesitate. That’s also the reason why it’s bad to put AI into fighter or bomber jets. The AI has a clear goal but a human might struggle to fire at an unknown target. Because the human has to life with the consequences.
Lol