[...]
>Chris
>This is like someone arguing, in 1910, that the fact that adding machines
>can't play chess is evidence that "the a basic AI assumption that humans are
>just machines is on the wrong track." More likely, it's evidence that the
>machines aren't well-programmed for this task. What will you say if, in a
>few years, machines are able to recognize faces easily?
>
I haven't been following this thread, but I can't resist barging in
anyway since I, like Steve, am an avid chess player. Formerly
competitive but now just for fun.
My central question, I guess, is what the ability of a machine
to play chess (or anything else) has to do with humans being
machines. I think it is typically the case that machines do
whatever they do better than humans. Isn't this why they were
designed and built? An automobile goes faster than a human can
run. So humans are cars? The logic escapes me.
I'm also curious about this "basic AI assumption". Can you support
that this so-called basic assumption actually plays any significant
role in AI? Steve has made some valid points, one of which I'll
re-phrase in the current context. If this truly is a basic AI
assumption then why were computer playing machines deliberately
designed so as to play chess in a way that is fundamentally
different from the way humans play chess?
Oh, and one last question. What definition is being used for
machine?
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz