Author: Don Dailey
Date: 10:40:51 01/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
I guess I might as well express my opinion since everyone else is. I feel that it's almost completely a matter of semantics and what you define as "intelligent." But if I had to say one way or the other I would say the computers are exhibiting artificial intelligence. Some people focus on the behavior, some the process itself. But if you focus on the process you will never define any piece of software as intelligent, because they are not. Why do you think the term "artificial" is pasted on to the phrase "artifical intelligence"? It's an admission right off the bat that there is no real intelligence. For this reason I am completely comfortable with saying chess programs exhibit artificial intelligence. If anyone say's I'm wrong, I'll simply agree with them! The whole issue is a non-issue and is purely speculation and philosophy. - Don On January 27, 1998 at 10:04:16, Dan Homan wrote: >On January 26, 1998 at 21:49:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >> >>If the computer can play a game that requires intelligence to play, then >>obviously the computer has to have some sort of "artificial >>intelligence" >>component to play the game. Else the entire premise is false. If you >>want >>to make a case that chess doesn't take intelligence, feel free. That I >>can't >>discuss as I'm not into that sort of stuff... >> > >That implies that questioning 'established' definitions is kind of >flaky... >I think I've understood your point as I've laid out in previous posts, >but >I get the impression that you've made no effort to understand mine. I'm >simply trying to explore the implications here... > >Does the fact that a brute force algorithm can play chess imply that >intelligence is involved in the algorithm or does it imply that chess >does not require intelligence to play. Simple question which is >difficult to answer... > >This seems like the kind of question a computer scientist would want to >answer. If you are simply interested in engineering a better chess >program, that's cool. > > - Dan > >P.S. I don't buy the argument that "chess requires intelligence to >play" >is accepted by all experts. The Deep Blue team is very careful not to >suggest that Deep Blue is demonstrating intelligence when it plays >chess. >The obvious implication is that they have come to the same conclusion >that I have.
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.