Author: Dan Homan
Date: 11:25:38 12/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 1999 at 13:56:29, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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... :) Actually I am arguing exactly the point you are... just in the opposite direction. Our observation is not that chess requires intelligence to play well - strictly speaking our observation is that humans require intelligence to play chess well. With this point made, you're logic is that.... A requires B to do C D does C, so D has B In less abstract terms: A carpenter requires wood to make a bench A stone carver makes a bench Therefore the stone carver has wood or... A human requires intelligence to play chess well A computer plays chess well Therefore a computer has intelligence Is not sound logic in any science class that I've ever taken. What you see as a moral/ethical point about "true" intelligence is merely my attempt to make a proper definition. If you wish to *assume* that chess requires intelligence (and go beyond the pure observational fact that humans require intelligence to play chess), then your logic stands up perfectly. - Dan > >-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.