Author: Gunnar Andersson
Date: 01:48:15 06/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2001 at 04:10:07, Pekka Karjalainen wrote: > It is easy to debate in the following form: > > To have real AI we need X. > ... > Ten years pass and we have X! > ... > But, I can understand how computers do X. It is so simple. Obviously, to >have real AI we need computers to do Y. > > And so on. Flexible definitions are always an advantage in a debate. Though >a dubious one, of course. A friend of mine cast it as follows: AI is a subset of the complement of itself. Whenever an algorithmic technique such as expert systems or alpha-beta pruning is discovered, this is no longer AI. I think defining AI through what is done is better than defining it through how it is done. After all, if somebody writes a program capable of understanding the moral of a fable, then there will always be somebody who goes "But that is just the well-known ABC algorithm applied to the XYZ problem, so that does not count as AI.". / Gunnar
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.