Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 20:57:21 03/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2001 at 23:20:55, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On March 13, 2001 at 22:33:46, Vincent Vega wrote: > >>On March 13, 2001 at 21:11:45, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Hmmm, I can find quite a few "accomplishments" that could be defined as >>requiring intelligence (because they require learning, adapting to new >>situations, generalization or reasoning) and can be achieved by most people but >>not by a currently existing computer program: getting a "human-range" score on >>an IQ test, learning a foreign language, driving a car without crashing, playing >>a team sport, summarizing an article, writing a computer program based on >>requirements... > >The only one you mention that is interesting is "summarizing an article". >Programs have been written to pass a standardized IQ test, a parrot can learn a >foreign language, on the Santa Monica freeway in California there is a >experimental program underway where the car is driven by a computer (besides, >the human record on not crashing is hardly stellar), robo-soccer is a team sport >where robots take part and as for writing computer programs, a non-trivial >program that does not contain bugs is pretty much unheard of. It is pretty >difficult to defend the behavior of humans as "intelligent" when they make so >many horrific mistakes such as undemine the environment, World War I & II, etc. >Human behavior does not bear close scrutiny. For the most part, humans act with >stupidity rather than intelligence. We make too many mistakes. That is exactly a characteristic of "animal" intelligence. It is based on mistakes, blurred analogies, prejudice... which are the basement for pattern recognition. That is what is hardest for machines: To make mistakes. Making mistakes is sometimes good, it allows a Gazelle to recognize a Lion as dangerous even though it never saw one. There is a pattern there very dangerous, that the gazelle can predict. >Besides, it is the average individual that has difficulty proving their >intelligence. For Albert Einstein, it's no problem. My point was machines seem >to be no less intelligent than the average human being especially given human >folly. The human being is extremely intelligent, but that does not mean is "wise". Regards, Miguel
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.