Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 03:17:15 03/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2004 at 05:48:37, Steven Edwards wrote: >See: http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-books/Hal/chap5/five1.html > >Any comments on the second paragraph? You mean this piece: "The question of whether HAL's chess ability demonstrates intelligence boils down to a question of how HAL plays chess. If, on the one hand, HAL plays chess in the "human style" -- employing explicit reasoning about move choices and large amounts of chess knowledge -- the computer can be said to demonstrate some aspects of intelligence. If, on the other hand, HAL plays chess in the computer style -- that is, if HAL uses his computational power to carry out brute-force searches through millions or billions of possible alternatives, using relatively little knowledge or reasoning capabilities -- then HAL's chess play is not a sign of intelligence. " Very vague IMO, What is "human style"? What is "explicit reasoning"? What is "large amounts of chessknowledge"? What is "some aspects of intelligence"? You can claim this to be true (or not) for current programs, depending on how you interpret it. The thing is, if you write X lines of code and the program does what those X lines of code tell it to do, it is still just a dumb machine! Whether the code does pattern matching or something else is insignificant, IMO. The day the machines does something you _haven't_ tought it, that's the day it starts to look alive. In some way, a tree search can make the program do just that, it can see things that are not "explicitly" programmed! :) -S.
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.