Author: Dan Homan
Date: 14:59:04 01/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
I didn't mean to offend, I'm just trying to figure out what you
mean by "artificially intelligent". I question your definitions,
and you seem to fall back to the position that "chess requires
intelligence, therefore...."
I would present an opposing view... that the success of computer
algorithms at chess has demonstrated that chess does not require
intelligence. Simply following a set of rules over and over again
can produce outstanding results previously believed to be only
achievable via human intellect.
I see your point, however, that computer programmers have succeeded
in artifically solving a problem which was previously *assumed* to
require human intelligence. In that sense I suppose they are
"artifically intelligent". But I reiterate my concern that this
is a very misleading term. I like your suggestion of "artifical
reasoning".
Rather than bicker over the definitions we are carrying around in
our heads, maybe we should lay out what we mean by intelligence...
1) Ability to solve complex problems
2) Ability to generalize from past experience to new experience
3) Ability to learn something completely new
(something beyond the intentions of original programming)
4) Ability to create
I'm sure there are other things that people would like to include,
but lets start with these. First look at a basic brute force
chess program with no learning capability....
Such a program plays chess very well, satisfying the Turing test
with your modification of limited domain, but it will only have
the first and fourth criteria here. (I am assuming that finding
new opening lines and new solutions in endgames can be considered
a limited form of creativity.) A program that learns its
evaluation function will satisfy the second critera as well.
That's 3 critera satisfied to some degree out of 4 which isn't bad.
The interesting thing about Turing's original test (with no
restriction on the kind of questions that can be asked) is
that a program would need to satisfy all four critera to pass.
An program that didn't would be unveiled over time. That is
why I thought that restricting the domain of the test undermined
it as an "intelligence" test.
The more I think about it; the more I come to the opinion that
it is generality (critera 2 and 3) that makes intelligence
so powerful as a problem solving device.
- 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.