Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 00:00:49 03/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2004 at 21:31:17, Steven Edwards wrote: >On March 29, 2004 at 06:17:15, Sune Fischer wrote: >>On March 29, 2004 at 05:48:37, Steven Edwards wrote: >> >>>See: http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-books/Hal/chap5/five1.html >>> >>>Any comments on the second paragraph? >> >>You mean this piece: >> >>"The question of whether HAL's chess ability demonstrates intelligence boils >>down to a question of how HAL plays chess. If, on the one hand, HAL plays chess >>in the "human style" -- employing explicit reasoning about move choices and >>large amounts of chess knowledge -- the computer can be said to demonstrate some >>aspects of intelligence. If, on the other hand, HAL plays chess in the computer >>style -- that is, if HAL uses his computational power to carry out brute-force >>searches through millions or billions of possible alternatives, using relatively >>little knowledge or reasoning capabilities -- then HAL's chess play is not a >>sign of intelligence. " >> >>Very vague IMO, > >>What is "human style"? > >The occasional blunder and the occasional brilliancy, moves which are seen >rarely, if ever, coming from a traditional A/B searcher. The traditional A/B search has plenty of brilliancies, but not so many blunders. This is indeed humanlike, just Super GM humanlike :) >>What is "explicit reasoning"? > >A deductive or inductive processing mechanism that can be clearly identified in >the program. One could point a finger at it in the source and point out axioms, >reasoning rules, hypothesis generation, proofs, etc. A/B is a proof searching tool. Interior nodes recognizers are explicit reasoning. >>What is "large amounts of chessknowledge"? > >1. Some of the stuff stored in a GM's head. GM's count material and so do programs. Likewise with pawn races, king shelter, outposts, mobility..... >2. Program source equivalent of the above abstracted and translated from chess >texts. No need to be "abstract". The information is the same whether written in assembler or Lisp :) It all gets translated to bits and bolts before processed by the chip anyway. >3. Processing that is too complex to be applied to each of millions of nodes in >reasonable time. No this would be _excessive_ amounts of chess knowledge :) But it doesn't matter, you just add even more computer power and problem solved. The definition should not come down to how much computer power you have. Besides what is "reasonable time"? >>What is "some aspects of intelligence"? > >Passing the Turing Test, not just for chess move output, but also for explaining >the reasoning behind the move selection. Optionally, also passing a Turing Test >on automated knowledge acquisition. None of our programs are anywhere near passing the Turing test. >>You can claim this to be true (or not) for current programs, depending on how >>you interpret it. > >I claim that any honest interpretation shows that a traditional A/B searcher has >none of the above. And I have just proved you wrong on all accounts :) >>The thing is, if you write X lines of code and the program does what those X >>lines of code tell it to do, it is still just a dumb machine! > >This is just the old reductionistic argument heard too many times already. Doesn't make it less true. >>Whether the code does pattern matching or something else is insignificant, IMO. >> >>The day the machines does something you _haven't_ tought it, that's the day it >>starts to look alive. >>In some way, a tree search can make the program do just that, it can see things >>that are not "explicitly" programmed! :) > >What if someone were able to produce a program capable of a complete and >accurate simulation of a human brain? What if? I don't see the connection to our dicussion. >If you think this is forever impossible, then please state a proof. I have no opinion on that, but if you want me to form one I'd have to say that computers are likely to take on many shapes and forms. E.g. I could picture some form of bio-electical matter that could simulate the brain. >If you think it is possible (someday), then how is it that *your* mind can be >capable of seeing things that aren't explicitly programmed? How do you know it _isn't_ explicitly programmed? We know for a fact we have large amounts of genetic and environmental programming, perhaps we are just too complex to be predictable (except perhaps for that one person that knows us too well:). Much like a tree search, you never know what comes next :-) >For that matter, how are you sure that you not such a program simulation >yourself? I'm not, how could I be? Perhaps we are all Gods little toy robots. -S.
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.