On 10/25/2013 2:28 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue
AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that
for a computer to beat a GM at chess, some meaningful AI would have to
be developed along the way. I don' thing that Deep Blue is what they
had in mind. IBM cheated in a way. I do think that Deep Blue is an
accomplishment, but not_the_ accomplishment we hoped for.
Tree search and alpha-beta pruning have very general application so I have
no doubt they are among the many techniques that human brains use.
Agreed, but the word "among" is crucial here. I don't think you will
find a part of the brain dedicated to searching min-max trees and
doing heuristic pruning. I do believe that if we could reverse
engineer the algorithms, we would find that they can operate as search
trees in some fuzzy sense. I think this distinction is important.
having a very extensive 'book' memory is something humans use.
Sure, but our book appears to be highly associative in a way that we
can't really replicate yet on digital computers. And our database is
wonderfully unstructured -- smells, phone numbers, distant memories,
foreign languages, all meshed together and linked by endless
memorized games and position evaluation are both very specific to chess and
are hard to duplicate in general problem solving. So I think chess programs
did contribute a little to AI. The Mars Rover probably uses decision tree
Fair enough, in that sense. Notice that I have nothing against
decision trees per se.
I believe there will be an AI renaissance and I hope to be alive to
You may be disappointed, or even dismayed. I don't think there's much
reason to expect or even want to create human-like AI.
Companions for lonely people. Sex robots. Artificial teachers.
Artificial nannies. Who know what else.
That's like the old
idea of achieving flight by attaching wings to people and make them like
birds. Airplanes don't fly like birds.
Ok but we want to fly mainly because we want to travel fast. For that
it turns out that the best solution is some metal tube with wings and
jet engines. For fun, people attach wings to themselves and do it more
Unlike artificial birds, there is probably huge market demand for
artificial humans. We can have the ethics debate, but that's another
It may turn out that "real" AI,
intelligence that far exceeds human capabilities, will be more like Deep
Blue than Kasparov.
Or, more likely, there is a huge spectrum of possibilities. Your
binary suggestion hints at an ideological preference on your part -- I
hope you don't mind me saying.
I don't mind you saying. But it's just that I don't think humans are *defined* by
intelligence. Hume wrote that reason can only be the servant of passions. Humans are
defined as much or more by their passions than by their intelligence. So we may create
super-intelligent AI's, but not ones driven by lust, loyalty, fear, adventure,... A real
question is whether we will give them a drive to creativity?
As for your idea of robotic companions, I expect that dogs are already close to optimum -
maybe a little genetic engineering for speech...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.