On 01/07/07, Tom McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But Deep Blue wouldn't try to poison Kasparov in > order to win the > game. This isn't because it isn't intelligent enough > to figure out > that disabling your opponent would be helpful, it's > because the > problem it is applying its intelligence to is > winning according to the > formal rules of chess. Exactly. The formal rules of chess say stuff about where to put pawns and knights; they're analogous to the laws of physics. They don't say anything about poisoning the opposing player. If you try to build in a rule about poisoning the player, the chess program will shoot him; if you build in a rule against killing him, the chess program will give him a hallucinogen; if you build in a rule against giving him drugs, the chess program will hijack the room wall and turn it into a realistic 3D display of what would happen if a truck smashed into the room by accident. This approach will never work- you're pitting your intelligence at designing rules against the program's intelligence at evading them, and it's smarter than you are.
Why do you assume that "win at any cost" is the default around which you need to work? -- Stathis Papaioannou ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=7d7fb4d8
