Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:07:39 03/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2001 at 23:23:42, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On March 15, 2001 at 21:56:16, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On March 14, 2001 at 21:52:57, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>
>>>On March 14, 2001 at 16:58:52, Andrew Dados wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think chess can be easily mistaken for a complex problem while it is not. As
>>>>you pointed most advances over last years were done thanks to speed increase
>>>>rather then software.
>>>>
>>>>In a problem where full information is available your move is determined; you
>>>>don't make 'decisions' or 'choices'. That is somehow obvious to me, however I
>>>>fail to create good set of arguments to back up my point that chess programs are
>>>>showing no intelligence.
>>>>
>>>>However if you call chess program intelligent exact same reasoning applies to
>>>>program playing 3x3 tic-tac-toe. Computation cost of solving a deterministic
>>>>model does not make a solution to it more 'intelligent', imo.
>>>
>>>I contend that the problem has to be sufficiently difficult before you can
>>>identify that quality (intelligence) in any decently large degree.
>>>
>>>bruce
>>
>>
>>Why do you need this artificial constraint?
>>
>>Just assume that intelligence is a continuum (spelling?) of degrees, that's much
>>simpler and widens its scope, so you can escape from anthropomorphism.
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>
>Yes.. but some things can be solved _without_ any intelligence. I huge maze
>will be difficult to escape from without some smarts. But a single room
>with 4 doors can be escaped from with a random algorithm that doesn't know
>anything about anything.
I have no problem to agree that a random algorithm has some sort of
intelligence.
Actually the whole life process is based on a random algorithm. Both asexual and
sexual reproduction are a way to randomize. It's a trial-and-error process based
on randomness. And look at the achievements of this random process!
In the case you describe, doing something, even at random, is more "intelligent"
than doing nothing. If you do nothing you don't solve the problem, if you do
something at random, you solve it.
>IE I would say that finding a mate takes no real intelligence. A pure search
>can do it given enough time. But to choose between two moves that don't lead
>to mate requires something "else".
>
>The intelligence debate is hopeless. Since "intelligence" has never been
>adequately defined, there is no point in arguing whether a computer can
>exhibit it or not... But it does make for a lively conversation topic. Good
>way to torque off an AI guy in a discussion. :)
It's hopeless if you stay in the frame.
Jump out of the frame!
And the first thing to do is to give up the idea of defining what is intelligent
and what is not. Maybe a more useful idea is to try to define how you determine
that behaviour A is more intelligent than behaviour B.
Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.