Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:34:21 01/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 1998 at 14:49:43, Dan Homan wrote: >On January 26, 1998 at 14:14:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 26, 1998 at 10:36:38, Dan Homan wrote: >> >> >>> >>>Clearly something more than 'do it as well as a human' is required >>>for intelligence. I'm not sure exactly what, but I outlined a few >>>things in my previous post. >> >> >>Never meant to imply that, because even one celled life forms eat. And >>just as efficiently as we do. It is the "do something that a human >>does, >>and which requires intelligence" that has been the guide words for AI >>for >>many years... > >That is just chasing your tail, because you never actually define >intelligence! You just define artificial intelligence. In that case >I will agree with you... with one requirement... You need to define >what "requires intelligence" means. I think this is a very difficult >thing to do without first defining intelligence. > I'm not chasing anyone's tail. I'm pursuing computer chess research. *period*. I'm not going to try to define intelligence. For years it has been a "given" that playing chess is an intellectual task. I tend to agree because lower life forms don't play the game. But I'm not about to get into the quagmire of trying to define intelligence... >IMHO chess does not "require" intelligence any more than following a >recipie in a cook-book requires intelligence. You can use intelligence >to cook or to play chess, but it is not required. Intelligence is >more than simply following well laid out rules, but this is my opinion >only... can't/won't argue here. I base my claim that "computer chess is a form of artificial intelligence" on the statements made by others over a 30 year period that chess does require intelligence. Perhaps a plan would be to call this "artificial reasoning" or whatever. However, 30 years of history has computer chess mentioned in every artificial intelligence book I personally own, more than 30 of 'em at last count. > >An additional point... You suggested that because a monkey cannot >play chess then chess must require intelligence. Here I must >disagree again. A monkey has intelligence, just not the quantity or >quality to allow it to play chess. A monkey can learn language, create >and use tools, and solve (relatively) complex and unfamiliar problems. >An alpha-beta algorithm can do none of these things. Don't change the game. If you want to define intelligence as the ability to take a problem and produce tools that will work to help solve that problem, that's an ok definition of intelligence by me. And suppose some- one produces a computer program that does that, is it then "artificial intelligence" or "real intelligence" or what... We've been working on chess for a long time. And producing good results. We started on chess "because". Because we wanted to see if a computer could do something that a human does (play chess), something that takes a great deal of "thinking" (playing chess) and something that would be fun to work on. But again, whether a computer is intelligent or not is not the issue. I simply claim that the computer can do some things that require intelligence, and do them well, although it probably accomplishes this in a far different way than we do ourselves... > >Perhaps it is a better to scrap the term "Artificial Intelligence" >because it is misleading. What you really mean in your above definition >is that these systems should do things "that humans traditionally use >intelligence to do well". This is a far cry from "requires >intelligence" but captures your meaning (I think). Perhaps a better >term would be "Artificial Analysis". The term intelligence suggests >a whole host of abilities that these algorithms just don't have. > > - Dan Again, I don't know exactly what "intelligence" is. I only know that for 30 years I have been told that playing chess is an intelligence-requiring task. The computers do play chess well. If it takes intelligence to play chess, then a computer is obviously exhibiting "artificial intelligence." I'd not ever cross the line to "intelligence" with a program, because that is likely some combination of biological, electrical, chemical, and who knows what else kinds of processes.
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.