Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:52:57 12/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2002 at 11:33:57, Bob Durrett wrote: >On December 20, 2002 at 10:51:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 20, 2002 at 08:52:44, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>>On December 19, 2002 at 23:04:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>I think the basic problem is in understanding how _we_ do something. For >>>>specific applications, no matter how complex they are, we can develop software >>>>to accomplish that particular task. But only _if_ we know how we solve the >>>>problem. That is the missing link so far. We simply don't know how we do >>>>what we do, we just know we do it. >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>Hmmm. That sounds VERY philosophical. Almost religious. >>> >>>So you really do not believe the science fiction writers when they portray >>>computers of the future creating new computers? Programs writing programs? >> >>Certainly I believe that will happen. I believe that before long, gene therapy >>will eliminate most disease. But it will _only_ happen after the complete >>genome is mapped along with all deviations that cause problems. > >Although perhaps TOO off-topic, I should "warn" everybody that our descendents >may run out of oil, coal, and nuclear fuel before all these good things happen. >[Solar Power Satellites may be their only salvation.] But I share your >enthusiasm regarding that genome business. It is almost as interesting as >computer chess! : ) > >>The point is, >>once you understand something, you can fiddle with it to make it better. But if >>you don't understand it, fiddling depends on serendipity to make it better, and >>there is just as good a chance it will end up worse. > >Seriously, that is my experience too. But I rarely "understand" well enough. >But don't knock the "trial and error" method. That's what Thomas Edison is >supposed to have done to produce a practical light bulb. You do like light >bulbs, don't you? : ) Yes, but that is a bit different. He _knew_ what he was trying to do, find a material for the filament that would produce significant light and last a reasonable length of time. His "trial and error" was within a tight experimental setup, with the only variable being "material". We aren't "there" yet... Everything is a variable and how each variable interacts with others is totally unknown, which is a problem... > >> >>I can write a program for any process I understand fully, no matter how >>complex it is. But for the human mind, we are simply not "there" yet... I >>fully believe we _will_ get there at some point in time however.... >> >>> >>>It is not clear to me that the computers [or robots] of the future will NEVER be >>>able to cut the umbilical cord to their human "parents." >> >>Nor to me... Just not yet... :) >> >> >>> >>>At the risk of offending human chess programmers, let me suggest that smart >>>computers or robots will create the chess engines of the future. The humans >>>will be told to stay home and keep out of trouble. : ) >>> >>>Bob D. >> >> >>That may well happen at some point in time...
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.