Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 10:56:29 12/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 1999 at 13:35:23, Dan Homan wrote: >Perhaps you mean any problem that *requires* intelligence for a human >to solve. If such a problem is solved by artifical means, then the >artifical means is by definition intelligent. Let's use this as your >definition of artificial intelligence. A human can certainly use intelligence >to wash clothes (identify the dirty spots, scrub them approriately, decide >when they are done), but I suppose it is not required, a human could just >move the clothes around randomly rather like a washing machine. Right, if you have a washing machine that examines your clothes for dirty spots, uses bleach appropriately, etc., then IMHO it's artifically intelligent. But not if it just spins clothes around and spits 'em out. >Couldn't a human just follow a brute force algorithm for playing chess? >That wouldn't seem to *require* intelligence, in fact the human wouldn't I disagree with this "extension." The washing-machine equivalent of playing chess is moving pieces around at random, which humans and computers clearly don't do. >Take someone who doesn't know how to play chess at all. By your definition >they are not intelligent. By my definition, their ability to learn No, no. I never said that. I said that chess requires intelligence, not that it's the measuring stick of intelligence. You seem to be arguing more from a moral/ethical standpoint about "true" intelligence and so forth. I'm only really concerned with the semantic argument. If activity X requires intelligence to do, then anything that does X is showing some degree of intelligence. I think that's pretty clear, from a logical standpoint... -Tom
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.