Author: Graham Laight
Date: 06:33:47 03/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2001 at 06:40:35, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On March 14, 2001 at 05:53:07, Andrew Dados wrote: > >>On March 14, 2001 at 05:35:16, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On March 14, 2001 at 05:25:37, Andrew Dados wrote: >>> >>>>On March 14, 2001 at 03:20:07, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 13, 2001 at 19:06:27, HECTOR MUNOZ wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>There are some who might argue that a computer chess program is not a >>>>>>demonstration of intelligence in particular, a program which uses Shannon's >>>>>>Type A Approach. I need to present a solid argument that such a program >>>>>>does involve intelligence. >>>>> >>>>>Everyone tries to answer this question without figuring out what they mean by >>>>>"intelligence" first. >>>>> >>>>>The OED definition takes the better part of a page, and gives various usages >>>>>dating back to 1390, although some aspects of the word are extremely new. In >>>>>particular, the use of the term "intelligence quotient" is said to date back >>>>>only to 1921, as expressed in English. That's the part of the definition that >>>>>gets everyone tied up in knots these days. >>>>> >>>>>The first definition is "[t]he faculty of understanding; intellect." The second >>>>>one is "[u]nderstanding as a quality of admitting of degree; spec. superior >>>>>understanding; quickness of mental apprehension, sagacity." The others don't >>>>>seem to apply much. >>>>> >>>>>I don't think the dictionary is very helpful here. This word seems too large >>>>>for the dictionary. Perhaps someone has written a book or an article that gets >>>>>to the point, but failing that, I'll take a crack at it, as it relates to >>>>>computer programs. >>>>> >>>>>I believe that intelligence is displayed if a program can generalize effectively >>>>>within a sufficiently complex problem domain. It's not enough to be able to >>>>>handle specific cases, it must be possible to be effective in a wide variety of >>>>>cases, via the use of general-purpose code. >>>>> >>>>>Chess, a game that has fascinated humans for hundreds of years in its current >>>>>form, and much longer if we allow for precursor forms, seems like it would >>>>>qualify as a sufficiently difficult domain. Humans devote their lives to the >>>>>game and the game remains fresh and challenging. >>>>> >>>>>I believe that the current programs generalize very well. They can play >>>>>essentially any position. There are some that cause them problems, but there >>>>>are a great many that they play well enough to challenge a strong human when the >>>>>human plays against the program, and they can be used even by very strong humans >>>>>in order to provide insight in very difficult positions. These positions are >>>>>rarely foreseen by the program's author, but the program is still very >>>>>effective. >>>>> >>>>>I think that intelligence is essentially the ability to effectively handle >>>>>difficult specific cases with general-purpose methods, and the chess domain, >>>>>while very specific, is rich enough that it requires the ability to generalize >>>>>in order to tackle the wide variety of practical cases a program is apt to face. >>>>> >>>>>Copyright (C) Bruce Moreland, 2001. All rights reserved. Permission to use all >>>>>or part of the above in a homework assignment is given only under the condition >>>>>that any quotation is accurately attributed. >>>>> >>>>>bruce >>>> >>>>I doubt chess domain is wide enough for 'generalization' here. If a program >>>>could learn Thai chess in 5 min as all chess-playing humans do I would attribute >>>>it some 'intelligence'. >>> >>>Why do they have to do as fast or play as well to be intelligent? Those are >>>standards for being "as intelligent" rather than simply being intelligent. A >>>chimp can't learn to play Thai chess, but they are still intelligent. >> >>Indeed. So let's say learn thai chess in 20 years :) >>Or create some other game. >>Or _develop_ some idea of 'beauty' or 'goal'. >> >>Somehow intelligent means 'transcendent' to me. >> >>And while chess program can play chess I would expect it to be able to play Thai >>chess, too. Or to learn that N+R vs R is dead draw after few games. Or to >>prepare against given opponent. Or study openings on its own. > >"I would expect" humans could play virtually all 5-man endgames perfectly or >play sharp open positions as well as a computer, but they don't. So are humans >then not intelligent? > >I don't like the idea of imposing too high a standard or making the standard >antho-centric. That to me seems like "rigging" the standard so computers will >fail to meet it. I agree wholeheartedly! Us egocentric humans are always doing this. A hundred years ago, doing floating point arithmetic quickly would have been regarded as a sign of intelligence. Now that a single supercomputer can easily do this more quickly than all 6 billion of us humans working flat out could possibly do, it's no longer regarded as an indicator of intelligence. Still - in 25 years, there won't be ANYTHING that humans can do better than machines - then the arguments will be over. -g >> >>> >>>> >>>>For now traversing Shannon tree with huge speeds and evaluation function >>>>'correct' in 99,96% or so I call 'good craftsmanship'. >>>> >>>>-Andrew-
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.