Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 21:11:00 03/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2001 at 23:57:21, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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 Look, I know humans are intelligent and machines are not, but the OP has to defend the position that machines are intelligent, which is tough assignment. He needs ideas and I gave him one. He's like lawyer that has to do defend a client. The client may be guilty, but the lawyer still has to make the best of it one way or the other. My idea was it is hard to "prove" intelligence even when it is human in question. I was merely suggesting a way to assume the offensive. What is your idea to make the difficult case that he has to make?
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.