Author: Tony Werten
Date: 01:46:34 06/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2001 at 18:05:17, Daniel Clausen wrote: >Hi > >On June 27, 2001 at 16:54:08, Bruce Moreland wrote: >[snip] >>The author demands too much. He's demanding much more generalized human-style >>intelligence. It's possible to be intelligent in a smaller domain. A program >>doesn't have to be able to write a sonnet before you can apply the term >>"intelligent" to it other than as marketing hype. >> >>bruce > >That's part of what I meant in a previous post. Some have such a generalized >"definition of intelligence" that as long as an engine doesn't go to school when >it's 8 years old and maybe marries another engine some years later, it's not >considered intelligent. If you define intelligence in such a human-style way, >there's already another word for it: human. That's why computers will never be intelligent. Intelligence is defined as humans being able to do things a computer can't. As soon as the computer can do it, it's not regarded as intelligence anymore. Tony > >Regards, > >Sargon
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.