Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 01:11:29 12/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
I have always belived intelligence in humans had to do with the ability to adapt to new cirumstanses ( how do you spell that? ) in a fast and efficent way. For instanse you could change the rules in chess a little bit, and the one adapting with success to the new rules would be the most intelligent under the circumstances. Under such a definition of intelligence, I can not see why we should call computer chess AI. ( Try to change the rules and check how well the Crafty and Fritzes of this world are doing.... :-) ). Intelligence should be intelligense even if its artificial! Torstein On December 16, 1999 at 23:19:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 16, 1999 at 21:17:46, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>A similar thread brings up an interesting question, "What is AI?" >> >>An old test was supposed to be that if we are playing a remote opponent we can't >>tell if it is a human or a machine. I think that can probably be achieved now >>(especially if we throw in a bit of randomness). > >Actually a computer probably can't pass at chess. Computers find mates way >too quickly. They make stupid mistakes in known 'trap' positions. Yes you >could kludge a fix for the mates too quickly, but it is not hard to catch >a computer with that kind of analysis... unfortunately. I doubt that is >what Turing had in mind, of course. But this was a discussion I had in 1984 >with a non-computer-scientist. And he uncovered Cray Blitz just this way. :) > > >> >>Then what tends to happen is that we say, "That's not really artificial >>intelligence. After all, it's just a machine, so it _can't_ be." We simply >>move the target and we are safe from the encroachment of the machine into "our" >>domain. >> > > >AI has two common definitions: > >(1) doing something that requires intelligence by a human to do. IE play >the game of chess. But as soon as someone sees how easy this is to do, >this gets changed to: > >(2) doing something that requires intelligence by a human to do. And it has >to be done in a way that is very similar to the way the human does it. IE in >chess, if a human considers 100 positions to choose a move, then the program has >to do approximately the same. (2) is often used when it becomes obvious that >(1) was much easier than anyone once thought. :) > > > > > > >>If (for instance) I was playing some opponent using Winboard and I only knew it >>was one of: >>"Kasparov" >>"Deep Blue" >> >>I would have no way of guessing which was which, since either one would pound my >>stuffings out effortlessly. > > >Yes you would. Give them both a mate in 15 position. DB will find it way >quicker. :) > > > > > >> >>So the question stands, "What is AI?" and along with it, the related question, >>"Are chess programs intelligent?" > > >Depends on which side of the fence you sit on. :)
This page took 0.01 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.