Author: Graham Laight
Date: 02:50:33 06/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2001 at 04:48:15, Gunnar Andersson wrote: >On June 27, 2001 at 04:10:07, Pekka Karjalainen wrote: > >> It is easy to debate in the following form: >> >> To have real AI we need X. >> ... >> Ten years pass and we have X! >> ... >> But, I can understand how computers do X. It is so simple. Obviously, to >>have real AI we need computers to do Y. >> >> And so on. Flexible definitions are always an advantage in a debate. Though >>a dubious one, of course. > >A friend of mine cast it as follows: AI is a subset of the complement of itself. > Whenever an algorithmic technique such as expert systems or alpha-beta pruning >is discovered, this is no longer AI. > >I think defining AI through what is done is better than defining it through how >it is done. After all, if somebody writes a program capable of understanding >the moral of a fable, then there will always be somebody who goes "But that is >just the well-known ABC algorithm applied to the XYZ problem, so that does not >count as AI.". > >/ Gunnar I personally define intelligence as the ability to have useful information in a situation. Artificial intelligence is, of course, the ability to do this without a natural brain. -g
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.