X-Message-Number: 5883 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 21:07:36 -0800 From: John K Clark <> Subject: Intelligence -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In #5877 (Thomas Donaldson) On Mon, 4 Mar 1996 Wrote: >On the issue of "intelligence", whatever it may be, it seems >to me that in order for anyone to design a machine which will >be "intelligent" the first thing they will need is some better >idea of just what "intelligence" is to mean. I don't think Michelangelo knew exactly what beauty was, he didn't have a good definition, yet he made beautiful objects. I'll bet you don't have a good definition of "elegance", I know I don't know exactly what it is, but I'm certain you've read mathematical proofs and computer programs that both of us would consider elegant. It wouldn't even surprise me if you'd written a few yourself. >when has it happened that someone has come to you and asked >you to write a program to do X, and you ask them to be more >precise about what X is, and the only thing they can say to >you is that if your program does X they will know it? Sounds like a job for a neural net, something that works by example and rules of thumb not by definitions and rigid rules. >Kasparov was responsible for defeating Deep Blue's designers. Deep Blue may no be quite good enough to defeat Kasparov, yet, but it is good enough to routinely beat Deep Blue's designers. Who gets the credit for the machines victory in this case, the loosing party? It seems to me that both sides should play by the same rules. If Kasparov deserves the credit when he wins then Deep Blue should get the credit when it does the same thing. John K Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i iQCzAgUBMT0Yj303wfSpid95AQH38QTvbaFWEd58UIYan7mZopWlqDNZDrNiwZoA V2i3D12tLensXBhDLzHhslKO5spLHsCW7qeO3Wdru3m7V9S287cMNdrcOMmrofpV jVDTNQmzcah2QOHW9rwteD9acs3MVuBakLoIcHzJKbIpEdi0+CZj+gbqe7BOdlAf zryFa+M5JM4chXtGmBUYmF5TlMP200JF4akYlAIlrCrxCxBKseA= =KPa5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5883