Author: Imran Hendley
Date: 09:02:01 12/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 1999 at 04:11:29, Torstein Hall wrote: Yes. I agree that intelligence involves the ability to adapt. When I look up artificial intelligence in the dictionary, it defines it as "the ability of a machine to perform those activities that are normally thought to require intelligence". I think this is a good definition, but not a complete one. Of course a computer can perform a task that requires intelligence if it is given an algorithm to do so. Multiplication can be an example of a task that requires intelligence. But just because a computer can multiply, doesn't mean it's intelligent. I would define AI as the ability of a computer to learn. If a computer can do something that you don't initially tell it to, then I think it exhibits some sort of intelligence. For instance if you could tell a computer only the rules of chess, and play 1000 games against it, and if it were to become stronger than you after those 1000 games, then I would call that artificial intelligence. > >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 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.