Author: Don Dailey
Date: 18:27:11 01/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
I couldn't agree with you more Jay. After something is achieved we lose respect for it and then re-define it as trickery. At some point we will have to declare our own brains as just being a clever collection of hacks and tricks. - Don On January 28, 1998 at 19:44:41, Jay Scott wrote: >On January 28, 1998 at 15:36:14, Peter Klausler wrote: >>IMHO, I don't consider a gameplaying computer program to >>be intelligent. But I would consider a program that can >>*develop* a winning gameplaying program from scratch to >>be intelligent! > >This is a classic opinion: whatever has been done is not >intelligence, whatever is one level harder and can't be done >yet is intelligence. In 1960 most people would have agreed >that a master-strength chess program is intelligent, because >they couldn't imagine other way to do such a thing. You >are in the same boat, a little farther down the stream. > >As it happens, I am writing (trying to write) such a >program. Here's my prediction, in case I succeed: When you >find out how it works and see what it can and can't do, >you will change your mind and decide that it's not intelligent >after all. It will be able to write some kinds of game programs >and closely related programs, and (if I'm successful) improve >them until they're strong. It will not be able to talk, or >learn to read, or see, or plan ahead. > > Jay
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.