Comparing Man and Machine?

An anonymous reader asks: "Today Garry Kasparov's last of 4 chess matches with the computer X3D Fritz ended in a draw. The totals of all 4 games leave the two opponents tied 2 to 2, revealing that even though the technology has advanced significantly since Kasparov was beaten by IBM's Deep Blue in 1997, the odds are not always on the side of brute computational power. This leads me to pose the question: is chess really a viable way to test whether man or machine is truly superior? Until AI becomes flexible enough to challenge us in arenas like art and music, what would be a better real-life competition?"

Comments

Go?

[spectral]

I'm sure someone will mention Go, just because it's always said that it's much harder to get a computer to do. But I don't see the point of playing games against computers anyway, what does it really prove? It proves that the data fed in to it (from hundreds of sources) and the (several) programmers are better at logically defeating a game than ONE person is. I'm amazed he won two games, this says far more about him than it does about anything else.

What exactly are these contests trying to prove anyway? When the computers gain a clear victory over the humans, what have we learned?

Re:Go?

[Telastyn]

Well because games will be the first thing that still is considered "thought" where a computer will beat men.

Computers can beat humans at repetative tasks, or calculation, but these do not involve decision making. Games are good for computers because they have a finite set of rules [which a computer needs] and an infinite set of decisions [which is an excellent test on AI].

Go in particular is a fantastic test for computers because it adds 2 other tests/problems. Firstly, it truly has infinite moves. Not really like chess where all of the moves can be calculated out for a few dozen turns. Secondly it involves alot of patterns. One thing that humans do especially well is pick out patterns in things. We know that just because a beagle looks slightly different than a dalmatian, they're still dogs. Even when we limit the pattern to a 19 by 19 board [standard Go board] computers [or more accurately their programmers] still suck at picking out patterns.

Since pattern matching and dealing with infinite decisions are two of the most vital parts of dealing with the world we test the AI in the nice controlled environment with a nice controlled result set [win/loss/draw].

And once computers dominate humans, we know that they're ready for the next test/game.

This isn't a test of which is superior

[RaboKrabekian]

This isn't a test of whether man or machine is superior. This is a test of whether man or machine is superior at chess.

Eventually machine will probably always be superior. For now they're about equal.

Re:This isn't a test of which is superior

[tchdab1]

The best machine is about equal to the best man at chess. Mediocre machines are better than most people now (most people can't play chess nearly at all).

Re:This isn't a test of which is superior

[michael_cain]

This is a test of whether man or machine is superior at chess.

Exactly. In terms of more general superiority, my question is always, "Now, let's see that chess-playing program write a book that explains how to play chess to other people." Any of the good chess players that I've met could write something, and most of the great players have written multiple books on the subject.

Intelligence

[Fux the Penguin]

I'd like to see something that really measures intelligence, and I don't think chess necessarily does that.

I would say (this is just my definition; take it for what it's worth :) ) intelligence is when something is self-aware and can develop NEW thoughts (ie. learn). Computers aren't really smart and likely won't be for a long time because they don't do anything NEW. All they do is to go through pre-defined algorithms, and use pre-defined techniques. Even so-called learning algorithms are very primitive and very little new thoughts are generated.

If someone can design a computer that comes up with totally new thoughts, it is intelligent in my book. So, instead of just using existing algorithms, if a computer can create a totally new algorithm, it is intelligent...

Having said that, if computers become intelligent, we'll have all sorts of problems...

For art or music to be used as a 'test'

[nocturbulous]

Wouldn't AI have to exhibit a degree of emotion?

Re:Remember the story of John Henry?

[Vaevictis666]

Man can now further his endeavors in Art and explorataion. But most just waste the extra time.

... by reading slashdot :)