Thread: Artificial?

Originally Posted by nvoigt

Even with a perfect agent, capable of coming up with the right answer in short time you will not have intelligence. Intelligence doesn't mean you have an answer to a question. Thats knowledge. Intelligence is more than knowledge, it's the power to apply knowledge when needed.

The application of knowledge to produce the maximum utilized response is intelligence; if an agent can do this 100% of the time within an infinitely short period of time, then this agent is perfectly intelligent (alternatively, show me an agent less capable that can be more intelligent). Hence why a perfect agent is perfectly intelligent. In the face of only near-infinitesimal look-up time, you get near-perfection and so on. At what point does a linear time look-up become more effecient/faster than a humanistic/hypothesized algorithm? We haven't reached that point yet, but trends in technology tell us that it will be coming relatively soon (i.e. technological singularity).

@rog: yes, humans don't play chess by analyzing each possible move, but then again we cannot play chess perfectly can we? This is what I mean when I refer to human bias; you have a tendancy to believe that the best algorithm to playing chess is a humanistic one, which is falsifiable from the start. It works for us (and current computers) given our limited resources, but in the face of near-unlimited resources, other algorithms (i.e. complete transpotion table with look-up) may be employed more effectively. BTW, you're right, silicon isn't king, but quantum may be diety...

What you described is MEMORY, not intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to determine a solution without prior knowledge of such solution. As for yoru assertion of 'current' computers, you are a bit out of date there. Computers have been better chess players for nearly half a decade now. Again, this isnt intelligence, as they are essentially doing a brute force search of the output space and selecting the solution that scores best at some fitness function.

It's not brute force. There's a lot of early elimination.

But then, that's exactly how human chess players work, too. Except for the part where they might play the person. But that won't really work when they play against a computer.

@nthony,
You are the only one who caught my point.
"I believe it should simply be called "intelligence": there is nothing artificial about it. "

I wasn't commenting on the current state of AI design or capabilities, just on the term Artificial in it.

I would use electronic intelligence to indicate the difference between biological intelligence and electronic, since the biological ones will have actions based on biological failings, and an electronic one, I would assume, not have those failings.