Quote Originally Posted by nvoigt View Post
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...