Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 06:08:48 06/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2001 at 05:58:52, Graham Laight wrote: >On June 27, 2001 at 21:15:19, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On June 27, 2001 at 17:03:58, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On June 27, 2001 at 15:09:22, Dan Homan wrote: >>> >>>>On June 27, 2001 at 10:56:24, William H Rogers wrote: >>>> >>>>>It never ceases to amaze me how a small handful of people who may or may not >>>>>have ever gone to college or even studied advance computer science and make >>>>>statements that are 100% the opposite of some of the worlds greatest minds from >>>>>all over the world have stated. The top great thinkers from almost every >>>>>university in the world have defined A.I. and what it is suppost to do and yet >>>>>there are a few young people here would match their intelligence againts theirs. >>>>>Maybe the Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or people at M.I.T.s should look into getting >>>>>rid of all of their Phd's and call you guys. >>>>>A.I., as it has been losely defined is the ability of a device to solve or make >>>>>decisions regarding a specific problem. How the machine was designed or >>>>>programmed is not the point, it is what it does afterward when it is turned on >>>>>and ran. >>>>>Not trying to stir up more waves, but I have studied this matter for years. >>>>>If you disagree, good, but just don't rewrite the worlds greatest accepted >>>>>facts. >>>>>Bill >>>> >>>>Hi, >>>> >>>>I am not sure that there is this universally agreed upon definition of >>>>artificial intelligence that you quote. Perhaps the first expert in computers, >>>>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'. >>> >>>The Turing test seems stupid to me, and I have no idea why it is touted as some >>>sort of standard of anything. It measures a program's ability to generalize in >>>the domain of light conversation. That's a fine thing to try to write a program >>>to do, and it's a hard problem, but it doesn't make sense to draw a line and say >>>that programs that can successfully make light conversation are intelligent and >>>those that can't aren't, in some absolute sense. There is no universal constant >>>H, which is defined as the capabilities of a human, that also defines >>>intelligent behavior. >>> >>>A dog can exhibit intelligent behavior, without coming anywhere close to being >>>able to pass the Turing test. Likewise, there are many humans who cannot >>>successfully impersonate a particular human. If you disbelieve this, just watch >>>"To Tell the Truth" on TV. >>> >>>AI is not about making something that can solve the Turing test. There are lots >>>of AI problems that have nothing to do with being able to simulate light >>>conversation. >>> >>>bruce >> >> >>Perhaps your notion of intelligence can be distilled into: The ability to find >>good solutions to NP hard problems. > >In that case, Lotus 123 (a spreadsheet) is intelligent. > >The "solver" menu options will both find numerical solutions to equations, and >optimise the value of a given cell by modifying the values of other cells. And >it will do it a whole lot quicker than any human could. > >I'm afraid I disagree with Bruce. I think the Turing test is good for the >following reasons: > >* for better or for worse, it has become a standard which must be met - a global >yardstick for comparing human intelligence with computers > >* it requires linguistic skill > >* it requires storage and fast, accurate retrieval of a huge amount of knowledge > >* progress on this test reflects the reality of the progress of computers >against the human brain in terms of producing the right output for a given input >(at the moment, computers can fool about 20-25 % of the population on the Turing >test). > >The basic problem with Bruce's argument is that, as far as I can tell, anything >that can do anything better than a human brain would have to be regarded as >intelligent (e.g. mechanical calculators, Napier's Bones, etc). > >The weakness of the Turing test is that it does not take account of visual >ability. > >-g My main problem with the Turing test is that a member of, say, a technologically advanced species from outer space wouldn't pass it. Ralf
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.