Forgot your password?
Cyhist Dec 18 1996 D
Document Actions
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 17:53:53 -0800
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU>
From: John Clark <john_c@CERF.NET>
Subject: Re: I got a chill
X-To: Michael Ravnitzky <MikeRav@ix.netcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <199612190120.RAA19079@nic.cerf.net>
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
Michael, while it may be romantic to speak so of chess playing algorithms, but i can tell you from personal experience they are *not* intelligent in any way. All big iron brings to the party is the kind of horsepower necessary to drive the computational horizon of the algorithm out far enough to give a genius like Gary Kasparov a hard time. i don't know what Gary Kasparov intended in his comment, but i have a hard time giving todays computers the ability to think.
Yours
--johnc--
P.S. i think the guys who write the stuff are pretty smart, but that's because i do it for a living ;-)
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Michael Ravnitzky wrote:
>______________________________________________________________________
>Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>After I read the articles about Gary Kasparov playing Deep Blue where he indicated that he was getting glimpses of the "alien thought process" he was playing, I got a huge chill. And I realized that massive processing combined with a suitably sophisticated algorithm doesn't duplicate human thought, but is, naturally enough, a virtual embodiment of an *inhuman* thought process.
>
>And a chess game is the way that such a thought process can communicate. For what are we, but suitably complex chemical processors?
>
>Did we see in Deep Thought's chess games the first real glimmerings of innate AI? Is this the channel through which we can learn to understand self-organizing conceptualization and cartesian awareness of sorts?
>
>Has anyone in the computer world ever gotten a sense that any synergy of brute force processing and self-modifying algorithm has produced any symptoms of independant thought that can be perceived in a direct manner? Are we in for more of these glimpses as 1.8 and 3.0 teraflop computers come on line?
>
>I like to envision the development of Helper/Counselor/Suggestor mode of AI, to collect data and provide options, not make decisions.
>
>Someday soon, someone will start an email list to document the early days of practical AI.
>
>Michael Ravnitzky
>MikeRav@ix.netcom.com
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU>
From: John Clark <john_c@CERF.NET>
Subject: Re: I got a chill
X-To: Michael Ravnitzky <MikeRav@ix.netcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <199612190120.RAA19079@nic.cerf.net>
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
Michael, while it may be romantic to speak so of chess playing algorithms, but i can tell you from personal experience they are *not* intelligent in any way. All big iron brings to the party is the kind of horsepower necessary to drive the computational horizon of the algorithm out far enough to give a genius like Gary Kasparov a hard time. i don't know what Gary Kasparov intended in his comment, but i have a hard time giving todays computers the ability to think.
Yours
--johnc--
P.S. i think the guys who write the stuff are pretty smart, but that's because i do it for a living ;-)
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Michael Ravnitzky wrote:
>______________________________________________________________________
>Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>After I read the articles about Gary Kasparov playing Deep Blue where he indicated that he was getting glimpses of the "alien thought process" he was playing, I got a huge chill. And I realized that massive processing combined with a suitably sophisticated algorithm doesn't duplicate human thought, but is, naturally enough, a virtual embodiment of an *inhuman* thought process.
>
>And a chess game is the way that such a thought process can communicate. For what are we, but suitably complex chemical processors?
>
>Did we see in Deep Thought's chess games the first real glimmerings of innate AI? Is this the channel through which we can learn to understand self-organizing conceptualization and cartesian awareness of sorts?
>
>Has anyone in the computer world ever gotten a sense that any synergy of brute force processing and self-modifying algorithm has produced any symptoms of independant thought that can be perceived in a direct manner? Are we in for more of these glimpses as 1.8 and 3.0 teraflop computers come on line?
>
>I like to envision the development of Helper/Counselor/Suggestor mode of AI, to collect data and provide options, not make decisions.
>
>Someday soon, someone will start an email list to document the early days of practical AI.
>
>Michael Ravnitzky
>MikeRav@ix.netcom.com
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>
