On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:54 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31 August 2014 12:27, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 8/30/2014 4:04 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> To be absolutely clear - the "Artificial" in AI refers to the machine >> which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. >> >> The problem with machines defeating "Jeopardy" players (I assume this >> refers to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy_%28TV_series%29 >> ?) is that the machines concerned almost certainly have no concepts of what >> the answers were about. >> >> >> How do you have a concept of what "Who was Charlamagne?" about? Isn't a >> lot of of it verbal and relational; stuff Winston does know. Of course >> Winston is ignorant about a lot of basic things about being a person >> because it doesn't have perceptive sensors and the ability to move and >> manipulate things. >> > > That's the point. Winston or whatever isn't immersed in an environment, or > its environment only involves abstract relations. So I do have a better > idea of who charlemagne was, even if I'd never heard of him before. > > Hence they aren't in fact "doing what humans do" (or at least not most > humans do, apart from perhaps *idiots savant*). Likewise, Deep Junior > almost certainly has no concept of what it's doing when it scores a 3-3 tie > aganst Kasparov. It has no concept of itself or its opponent, or very > limited "concepts" embedded in relatively small* data structures - and it > experiences no emotions on winning or losing. > > Isn't the reason you think that is because its input/output is so >> limited? It wouldn't be at all difficult to add to Deep Blue's program so >> that on winning it composed a poem of celebration and displayed fireworks >> on a screen - or even set off real fireworks - and on losing it shut down >> and refused to do anything for three days. >> > > No, I think that because there's no evidence whatsoever that Deep Blue etc > have feelings, at least none that I've come across. I'd be happy to be > proved wrong (which would be a boost for comp, I suppose). >
I'm not sure "comp needs a boost"... this might be horrible ;-) Perhaps a look at the game itself would be appropriate at this point because yesterday, the current World Champion played White and lost to black. Yes, the dark side won this one yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXm_DaG09SE The engines might be "merely matching/summing tables" but they assess the game as winning/loosing pretty much in harmony with our third person assessment of the game, which the above link illustrates nicely; which is also why Grandmasters and lesser humans use engines to analyze games and check, pun intended, their judgement. Feelings? We know: It's sad to watch a world champion loose and search for dwindling branches in vain. Same for watching an engine. Whether two great engines or humans play => fun stories for some, painful ones for others, and nice undecided ones in funky explosive draws. I'd say yes, chess is partially about matching tables AND partially about incredible struggles between good and evil, kings, queens, knights, bishops, rook cops, pawns, promotions, sacrifices, tactics, strategy, diagonalization, truth and all. And when an engine or human is in winning position: the searches for lines in a position light up like Christmas trees. Does the engine "know" this while coming up with its results/playing? And... do we? It's funny we end up with the same notes on the matter though. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
