Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 16:48:26 09/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 1999 at 12:56:08, Sven Reichard wrote: >Looking at the history of AI you could propose the following (time dependent) >definition: >Intelligence is at any time what is required for any task that humans can >perform, and computers (currently) can't. >Since 1997 we know that no intelligence is required for playing chess; in the >future we might find out that the same holds for playing go, or writing novels >or symphonies, or pattern recognition, etc. >It follows from this that AI is an oxymoron. >(Please take this cum grano salis!) > >Sven. That's not a good definition of intelligence, IMHO. Too narrow. And contradictory because the sheer use of the sentence " any task" supposes more that what only human kind can solve. A task beyond human capabilities is still a task, a problem to solve that requires an intellect to solve it. So "any task" involves that "any solver" can be o should be intelligent. Problem is we tend to confound intelligence with conscience. A question: a problem solved without conscience is or is not a sign of an operating intelligence? Another: it does exist an intellectual operation to solve a problem that is self-aware of what it is doing? Are you following each step of any of the operations thorough wich you develop an idea? On the contrary, it seems self awareness of what you are doing tend to hinder the operation. Ideas just come, you see them almost ready, they are almost finished when you are aware of them; connections has been made trought your network of synapsis without your detailed intervention; is like you just put a goal, you feel a problem and the machine begins to work. In this sense, diference between human kind and artificial brains is less deep that it could seem. We are more flexible, slow, fuzzy, so we can be more creative; AI goes trought more fixed lines althought not in the mechanic fashions a lot of people tends to believe. In fact, a cybernetic devices is not a machine in the strict sense of the word, that is, is not a system of fixed operations as much input is variable and the parameter can be changed by the same operation of receiving the input. Of course, take this, also, with a grain of salt. Cheers Fernando
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.