Author: Louis Fagliano
Date: 11:17:56 08/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 05, 2002 at 13:08:16, Terry McCracken wrote: >On August 05, 2002 at 11:54:14, Louis Fagliano wrote: > >>On August 05, 2002 at 11:10:55, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>Do computers make decisions? >>>If so, what is your definition of a "computer decision" and how it relates and >>>differs from human decisions? >>> >>>Please cite examples. This can be from chess to any area of so-called "machine >>>intelligence", please give _your_ answers, as well as information that can be >>>obtained on the net. >>> >>>Your help with these answers will be greatly appreciated! >>> >>>Thanks in Advance. >>> >>>Regards, >>> Terry McCracken >> >>You don't need an expert to answer this one. Computers can't. The only >>"decision" a computer can make is to pick out the largest number in an array of >>numbers. That is why the evaluations of all positions in it's search tree must >>be numerical. (I.e., assign points to certain positive or negative features of >>a position such as give yourself 15 points if you have a passed pawn, deduct 10 >>points if your knight is on the side of the board, etc.) Then every position in >>it's search tree has a numerical value assigned to it and the computer simply >>picks the end position (the node) on it's search tree that has the highest >>numerical value. There is no intellegence involved in "picking", for example, >>the highest value out of the following array of numbers: >> >>15.2, 4.8, 24.7, -0.9, -2.7, 9.9, 7.9, 10.1 >> >>It would be 24.7, of course, and arriving at that "chioce" is not >>"intellegence", but a simple mathematical consequence of an assigned function >>value. >> >>The intellegence comes from the programmer who must come up with the point >>values used in evaluating the position. This becomes obvious when you consider >>the fact that a program can be made to play weaker by changing the parameters of >>it's evaluation function (i.e., creating a personality in Chessmaster or Rebel) >>If the new parameters make the computer play weaker chess, it doesn't "question" >>it's new parameters. It simply does what it is told. There is no intellegence. >> >>It may look like intellegence when doing so at high speeds and with a very good >>evaluation function (which has to be written by a human), but mimickry is not >>the real thing any more than a colored wax figure or mannequin is not the same >>as a live person however closely it may resemble it. > >Thank You for your reply, however I do know that machines aren't intelligent. >Forgive me for how I worded my questions. > >I wanted clear examples of how computers arrive at an answer, in any area of >so-called A.I. You gave me one, thank you. > >I didn't think it would be like the human brain or even remotely close. > >I wanted to know, 1.Does a machine decide anything in any sense, and 2. How does >it relate, (if it does) in the remotest way, to the human process, i.e. the >brain. As I said, the only way a mchine decides anything is by "choosing" the largest number in an array or by "deciding" that one number is larger than, less than, or equal to another number. This is strictly mechanical/mathematical and does not involve any intellegence. Thus, it is not related to the human process. The human brain, when arriving at any decision to make, invokes some sort of reasoning and there is no reasoning involved in the above. > >I've never seen any conclusive arguements in the area of artificial >intelligence. > >Most say A.I. does _not_ exist. Some say it will _never_ exist! > Oh, AI exists alright. A complex program involving hundreds or even thousands of numerical parameters (written by humans!) that a computer is comparing to each other makes it seem that a computer is making intellegent decisions and that is what we call AI. But again, like I said, it's the comparison of a wax statue to a living human. The wax statue is AI and the living human is "real" intellegence. >I guess, I'm trying to get together as many computer scientists at this forum >to give their educated opinion and facts, on what computers can actually do >today, mostly, and to some extent what they may do in the future. > >Terry What computers can do in the future depends on faster and faster hardware and smaller and smaller circuits and larger and larger data storage space and retrival. All of this will make AI seem "smarter" ans "smarter". But the difference is that biological creatures need to be smarter and have intellegence because of it's survival value so it's an evolutionary driven process. Computers will not get "smarter" unless humans delibrately write better and better programs and delibrately find ways to make smaller and smaller circuits and larger and larger data storage space and retrieval. It's a human driven process. Computers can't get more advanced unless humans want them to and that will always be the difference between "natural" intellegence and AI. It doesn't mean that computers will never play chess better than any human since human make tools that far exceed there own naked physical abilities (i.e., a car goes faster than any human can run) but tools is excatly what it is. AI is nothing more than a tool created by humans for human use is controlling and manipulating their environment. In short, "natural" intellegence is the real thing. AI is a tool arising as a by-product of "natural" intellegence.
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.