Author: José Antônio Fabiano Mendes
Date: 12:49:36 03/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2001 at 12:07:39, Christophe Theron wrote: >On March 15, 2001 at 23:23:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 15, 2001 at 21:56:16, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On March 14, 2001 at 21:52:57, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On March 14, 2001 at 16:58:52, Andrew Dados wrote: >>>> >>>>>I think chess can be easily mistaken for a complex problem while it is not. As >>>>>you pointed most advances over last years were done thanks to speed increase >>>>>rather then software. >>>>> >>>>>In a problem where full information is available your move is determined; you >>>>>don't make 'decisions' or 'choices'. That is somehow obvious to me, however I >>>>>fail to create good set of arguments to back up my point that chess programs are >>>>>showing no intelligence. >>>>> >>>>>However if you call chess program intelligent exact same reasoning applies to >>>>>program playing 3x3 tic-tac-toe. Computation cost of solving a deterministic >>>>>model does not make a solution to it more 'intelligent', imo. >>>> >>>>I contend that the problem has to be sufficiently difficult before you can >>>>identify that quality (intelligence) in any decently large degree. >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>> >>>Why do you need this artificial constraint? >>> >>>Just assume that intelligence is a continuum (spelling?) of degrees, that's much >>>simpler and widens its scope, so you can escape from anthropomorphism. >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >> >>Yes.. but some things can be solved _without_ any intelligence. I huge maze >>will be difficult to escape from without some smarts. But a single room >>with 4 doors can be escaped from with a random algorithm that doesn't know >>anything about anything. > > >I have no problem to agree that a random algorithm has some sort of >intelligence. > >Actually the whole life process is based on a random algorithm. Both asexual and >sexual reproduction are a way to randomize. It's a trial-and-error process based >on randomness. And look at the achievements of this random process! > >In the case you describe, doing something, even at random, is more "intelligent" >than doing nothing. If you do nothing you don't solve the problem, if you do >something at random, you solve it. > Intelligence can find solutions where there are none. Robert A. Heinlein > > >>IE I would say that finding a mate takes no real intelligence. A pure search >>can do it given enough time. But to choose between two moves that don't lead >>to mate requires something "else". >> >>The intelligence debate is hopeless. Since "intelligence" has never been >>adequately defined, there is no point in arguing whether a computer can >>exhibit it or not... But it does make for a lively conversation topic. Good >>way to torque off an AI guy in a discussion. :) > > >It's hopeless if you stay in the frame. > >Jump out of the frame! > >And the first thing to do is to give up the idea of defining what is intelligent >and what is not. Maybe a more useful idea is to try to define how you determine >that behaviour A is more intelligent than behaviour B. > > > > Christophe
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.