Author: Dan Homan
Date: 05:57:31 01/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 1998 at 20:39:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 25, 1998 at 19:23:18, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On January 25, 1998 at 15:07:25, Komputer Korner wrote: >> >>[entire post snipped] >> >>Come on, Komputer. At least be annoyed for the right reasons. ICCAJ >>decided to bore us to death, and Mr. Korf seems to be the only person >>around who doesn't realize that any IBM statement on this is done for >>reasons of PR. >> >>I don't think any of your arguments are valid, but your conclusion (and >>IBM's) are correct. Computer chess is not artificial intelligence, for >>reasons that computer chess programs will find obvious. In the beginning >>of the 1980's, Douglas Hofstadter claimed that a computer that plays at >>a master level would need to have intelligence, in the sense that do >>that it would have to have, as a necessary by-product, general >>capabilities exceeding chess that are intuitively interpreted as >>intelligence. This simply happens not to be true (fortunately for us >>programmers), and Hofstadter has changed his mind. >> > >I totally disagree. Every AI book I have in my office convers >alpha/beta, >minimax, best-first, depth-first, etc. So maybe the brute-force type of >search they use doesn't match what some would like to have AI become, >but >that hardly means that chess programs are *not* "AI". IE, my AI texts >say that minimax is a valid AI search algorithm... therefore the >program >it is used in as an AI program. > >A common misconception is that a "real AI" program somehow has to "do it >like a human." There is *no* such constraint in the world of AI. Only >that the program must exhibit some measurable form of expertise in the >area under investigation. The most common "test" has been the so-called >"Turing test"... Which does *not* measure "how" a program does what it >does, only that it does it in a way that is indistinguishable from a >human, >when you only consider the final results (the moves played). > Alpha-Beta is just an algorithm... an equation really. I don't see how this can be defined as intelligence. Yes, it solves problems. A calculator also solves problems, but no one would claim that it has intelligence. Solving problems, IMHO, is only one aspect of intelligence.... there are many others that an algorithm like alpha-beta just doesn't have. The most obvious one is the ability to learn from experience and extrapolate from that experience to novel situations. My dog can do this, but an alpha-beta algorithm cannot. I like to think of intelligence as the ability to go beyond your 'programming'. I know this a pretty vauge definition and probably misses some important aspects of intelligence that others might point out, but it sums up my objection to alpha-beta being an example of intelligence. Alpha-beta will do exactly what you tell it to do every single time (just like a calculator). I'm not against the idea of computers having intelligence. I think they have already captured many aspects of intelligence, but always in a limited way. No computer chess program can pass the "Turing test" because it cannot tell me how it feels about the weather today or what it thinks about the Pope's visit to Cuba. I think intelligence is a general property, not a specific one. I don't expect computers to have a human-like intelligence (a.k.a. the "Turing test"), but I expect them to capture certain aspects like generality and the ability to extrapolate from experience to new situations. - Dan
This page took 0.01 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.