Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 23:57:08 03/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2001 at 09:33:47, Graham Laight wrote: >On March 14, 2001 at 06:40:35, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>I don't like the idea of imposing too high a standard or making the standard >>antho-centric. That to me seems like "rigging" the standard so computers will >>fail to meet it. With chess the opposite conclusion is possible. Chess, a game that the general public would overwhelmingly describe as requiring intelligence to play, but the programs are not allowed to be described as intelligent, not because the problem is too easy for humans (it is not), nor because the programs don't play well enough (they play very well), but because the programs themselves do not have to be complex. Maybe an intelligent program has to be complicated and very difficult to write, but I have to wonder why. >I agree wholeheartedly! Us egocentric humans are always doing this. > >A hundred years ago, doing floating point arithmetic quickly would have been >regarded as a sign of intelligence. Perhaps deservedly so. People weren't accustomed to thinking that it was possible to do a "mental" task via a machine. Once you can deal with the idea of a computer, those tasks are not a big deal since they are so easily reduced to algorithms. bruce >Now that a single supercomputer can easily do this more quickly than all 6 >billion of us humans working flat out could possibly do, it's no longer regarded >as an indicator of intelligence. > >Still - in 25 years, there won't be ANYTHING that humans can do better than >machines - then the arguments will be over. > >-g > >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>For now traversing Shannon tree with huge speeds and evaluation function >>>>>'correct' in 99,96% or so I call 'good craftsmanship'. >>>>> >>>>>-Andrew-
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.