Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 09:45:53 11/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2000 at 11:42:04, Mike S. wrote: >On November 19, 2000 at 11:05:41, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On November 19, 2000 at 10:25:21, Hermano Ecuadoriano wrote: >> >>>There has been some discussion here about holding some >>>"exhibition" variations on the Turing test. >>>This must be done eventually. >>>If successful, it would be epoch-making. >>>I think the year 2001 is fantastically apropo, >>>promotionally speaking! >> >>I don't think any of the top computer programs can come close to passing a >>turing test. (...) >> >>I would not be surprised if the CCC membership could easily devise a test >>consisting of 10 positions, which virtually any strong human would solve 10 of >>10 and the top programs would solve 0 of 10. > >Probably possible, but this would not be a Turing test (at least not compliant >to the definition I remember). A it was just discussed below, referring to an >announcement of Ed Schröder regarding computer games against GM v.d.Wiel, this >would be a test by watching a game (live or afterwards) without knowing which of >the players if the human and which one is the computer. Your take on what the turing test consists of raised an eyebrow. Now I have to break out a book I have on AI called "Artificial Intelligence: a modern approach" by Stuart Russell & Peter Novig. This is how they define it: "The Turing Test, proposed by Alan Turing (1950), was designed to provide a satisfactory operational definition of intelligence. Turing defined intelligent behavior as the ability to achieve human-level performance in all cognitive tasks, sufficient to fool an interrogator. Roughly speaking, the test he proposed is that the computer should be interrogated by a human via a teletype, and passes the test if the interrogator cannot tell if there is a computer or a human at the other end." In other words, as the interrogator I would easily flunk todays top computer programs with a 10 position test. What the test consists of is clearly the choice of the interrogator. > >It would indeed be interesting to see, if chess experts can determine this... >Did computerchess catch up with science fiction in this respect? As Hermano >indicates by *2001*, playing chess like HAL is different than "just" playing >very strong like i.e. Deep Blue: > >http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-books/Hal/chap5.java/five1.html > >Regards, >M.Scheidl > > >P.S. If someone wants to try it: >http://x56.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=657997698&CONTEXT=974605131.1065680911&hitnum=0
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.