Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 18:11:45 03/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2001 at 19:06:27, HECTOR MUNOZ wrote: >There are some who might argue that a computer chess program is not a >demonstration of intelligence in particular, a program which uses Shannon's >Type A Approach. I need to present a solid argument that such a program >does involve intelligence. Trying to come up with "a solid argument that such a program does involve intelligence" is too defensive and probably impossible anyway. If you want to win a debate, don't ask any questions he expects and shift attention away from difficult questions he might ask by answering questions with questions, etc. For instance, at the earliest possible moment, when he asks you to provide proof that machines are intelligent, you counter by asking *him* to provide proof that *he* is intelligent. The list of intellectual accomplishments the average individual has is embarrassingly short, so whatever he says in response, you can belittle and attack ruthlessly. Whatever he says, you can discount by pointing out that it has been done before and so he is just "copying". Not a sign of intelligence at all, etc. He will find it very embarassing. For most people, the list is empty. Your implicit stategy then is: a program is at least as intelligent as a person, since the average person can provide little evidence of intelligence that is not easily disputable.
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.