Author: Don Dailey
Date: 21:41:26 01/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
This is degrading into a philisophical discussion but here goes: I am wondering if "true intelligence" (whatever that means) has something to do with self-awareness. You can make an argument that humans are really sophisticated computers and I have no idea whether this is correct or not. You can also argue that self-awareness is completely separate from intelligence. And I would not know the right answer here either. It's clear that humans (so far and maybe forever) are way beyond computers but the only thing that seems clear to me is that there is at least this one thing that set's us apart. (Someone is going to ask me how I know computers are not self aware I'll bet.) This one thing could be tied to intelligence. I don't pretend to know but will make this guess. There is a school of thought that says given enough complexity, self awareness will emerge (I am not of this school, and think there is a different mechanism.) I think there is a good chance the two are tied together somehow. I think it might be correct that "artificial intelligence" is not intelligence but a simulation of it that never quite hit's the mark. I find the subject interesting but nothing is at stake for me. If it turned out either way I wouldn't feel diminished or enhanced. But the real problem with these discussions (in my opinion) is that there is no definition of intelligence we agree on. Everyone THINKS they know the answer intuitively but I'll bet everyone has a different idea (highly internalized in their heads) about what it really is. Can we define it in a way that cannot possibly include well programmed computers? As computers do more and more amazing things we will tend to keep changing our definition of what intelligence is (so as to leave them out!) This is what keeps happening with the whole field of AI. They keep doing interesting things and then it gets redefined as not really being AI. Maybe at some point the ultimate Robot will take a good look at us humans and say nah... they do some clever tricks but I wouldn't call them intelligent! - Don On January 27, 1998 at 18:12:44, Dan Homan wrote: > >On January 27, 1998 at 13:40:51, Don Dailey wrote: > >>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." > >Agreed. > >>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. > >I focus on abilities. As I outlined in a previous post, I think > intelligence is simply a set of abilities. Chess programs only >have some of these abilities... most prominently the ability to >calculate. > >In my view having some of these abilities is not sufficent to claim >intelligence. Others disagree.... > >I think Human intelligence is defined most strongly by its' >generality. This generality allows us to do things that were >never intended in our programming! We can learn chess and >calculate variations to win... > >Chess programs can reproduce this ability through very >different means. Does this mean that they are intelligent? >Or does this mean that something less than intelligence >(perhaps just some select aspects) is required to play >chess well? > >If artificial intelligence is just the reproduction of *some* >abilities that human intelligence gives us, then that is a >fine definition which I can go along with. However, I >will point out again that "artificial intelligence" is a >loaded term in common usage. An expert might >realize what you mean, but the "viewing public" will >get quite a different impression. > > - Dan > >> >>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 >>
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.