Author: Dan Homan
Date: 16:23:11 06/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2001 at 18:22:54, Daniel Clausen wrote: >Hi > >On June 27, 2001 at 15:09:22, Dan Homan wrote: >[snip] >>Alan Turing, came up with the 'Turing Test' for artificial intelligence. His >>test is that you can ask the machine any twenty questions you want by typing >>into a terminal and the answers appear on the screen. If you cannot tell >>whether the answers were given by the machine itself or another human (who >>might be hidden in another room), then the machine is said to be 'intelligent'. > >While Alan Turing at least voices clearly how he defines 'intelligent', I never >liked it. I don't claim to be more clever than Alan Turing or "these guys at MIT ><you_name_it> but I still can have my opinion. :) > >The test implies that if "something" answers questions like a human, it's >considered 'intelligent' (human => intelligent) That _doesn't_ mean that if >"something" is _not human_ it can't be intelligent - as long as you don't define > 'being intelligent' as 'being human' > >Or in symbols: > >"A => B" => "!A => !B" can only be true if "A==B". > > >>I forget who, but someone pointed out that the computers could not pass even >>this limited test, because if you fed them 20 long, complicated mates, the >>computer would respond much more accurately (and quickly) than any human could >>be expected to. > >Or you turn off the power and wait 10 years and only feed it with salad.. I >guess I add some random waiting loops to my engine and consider it 'more >intelligent' now.. :) Yes, clearly the definition doesn't work here. I wasn't touting Turing's definition as superior... merely very different from the one Bill gave. Basically, I think you can shoot holes in any definition someone comes up with... in the end I think it means that we really don't know what intelligence is precisely. All of the definitions are qualitative, the ability to make a decision is not enough (if it were, my mechanical piggy bank which decides which coins go into which tubes would be artificially intelligent), usually the experts require that the problem be 'complex enough' which is a qualitative distinction. We're starting to get far-afield from chess programming, so maybe this belongs in the chess thinkers forum, but at the risk of being moderated... I think it is very interesting all of the problems that A.I. is now addressing. When complex things like chess can be adequately solved by a receipe (which all an computer program is), this really challenges our notion of what intelligence is. Some people now say that the ability to write the receipe is where the intelligence lies, but some of these 'receipes' are now writing receipes of their own. (Some researchers here at Brandeis wrote a program to design an efficient crawling robot... the program output was a receipe for building the robot -- very cool!) So what is intelligence, if everytime we make a new definition, a machine can prove that it can do similar things? I don't know. - Dan > >Regards, > >Sargon
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.