Author: Steven Edwards
Date: 18:31:17 03/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2004 at 06:17:15, Sune Fischer wrote: >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"? The occasional blunder and the occasional brilliancy, moves which are seen rarely, if ever, coming from a traditional A/B searcher. >What is "explicit reasoning"? A deductive or inductive processing mechanism that can be clearly identified in the program. One could point a finger at it in the source and point out axioms, reasoning rules, hypothesis generation, proofs, etc. >What is "large amounts of chessknowledge"? 1. Some of the stuff stored in a GM's head. 2. Program source equivalent of the above abstracted and translated from chess texts. 3. Processing that is too complex to be applied to each of millions of nodes in reasonable time. >What is "some aspects of intelligence"? Passing the Turing Test, not just for chess move output, but also for explaining the reasoning behind the move selection. Optionally, also passing a Turing Test on automated knowledge acquisition. >You can claim this to be true (or not) for current programs, depending on how >you interpret it. I claim that any honest interpretation shows that a traditional A/B searcher has none of the above. >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! This is just the old reductionistic argument heard too many times already. >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! :) What if someone were able to produce a program capable of a complete and accurate simulation of a human brain? If you think this is forever impossible, then please state a proof. If you think it is possible (someday), then how is it that *your* mind can be capable of seeing things that aren't explicitly programmed? For that matter, how are you sure that you not such a program simulation yourself?
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.