Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 13:04:22 03/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2001 at 12:24:40, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On March 14, 2001 at 16:05:46, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On March 14, 2001 at 12:30:27, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >> >>>To beging with, they don't play. They make exclusively mechanical moves >>>following a pretedermined and invariable set of instructions. An illustration: >>> >>>[D]3k4/1r2p3/r2pPp2/b1pP1Pp1/1pP3Pp/pP2K2P/P7/8 b >>> >>>Give this position to programs time and again and until the end of times they >>>will evaluate is as a crushing win for black. That's not intelligence any more >>>than the talk of a parrot. >> >>I don't think that pefection is mandatory. The programs handle general cases >>very well. They are optimized to handle practical cases, and you of all people >>know how well they handle general cases. >> >>If I find a case you can't figure out in reasonable time, does that mean that >>you are a parrot, too? >> >>They aren't exactly like humans but that shouldn't matter as far as the use of >>the term "intelligence" goes. >> >>bruce > >Dear Dr. Frankenstein, :) > >British Encyclopedia: "Intelligence, mental quality that consists of the >abilities to learn from experience, adapt to new situations, understand and >handle abstract concepts, and use knowledge to manipulate one's environment." > >"Although definitions of intelligence vary, theorists agree that it is a >capacity or potentiality rather than a fully developed attainment." > >Like this one, all definitions I found of intelligence are more descriptive or >intuitive than theoretical, but all of them include the ability to learn as a >required condition of intelligence. If you decompose semantically the word >intelligence in units of significance, "learning", "understanding", "relating", >"projecting", will appear in the scheme as necessary conditions and they are all >totally or partially alien to chess programs. > >Chess programs do not learn, can't apply knowledge they have to a new context, >and much less to a new field. Therefore there is no intelligence in them. > >Because we know that to humans chess requires some degree of intelligence, we >may assume mechanically that a program able to play chess shows intelligence, >which is an illusion since all it does is to behave, predetermined, "as if", >without reaching the "capacity or potentiality rather than a fully developed >attainment" mentioned above. > >Incidentally, it is not that I am afraid of machines becoming intelligent. On >the contrary, this "as if" is what I always found fascinating in computer chess. > >Enrique Yes to all above :)
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.