Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Obviously, the steel-cage no holds barred death match is the answer.
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?
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.
"Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
I'd like to see something that really measures intelligence, and I don't think chess necessarily does that.
:) ) 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.
I would say (this is just my definition; take it for what it's worth
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...
Give a machine vague instructions on how to run an errand like going to buy your favorite decongestant and chips. In today's world, running this simple errand is easy for people, but extremely difficult for machines.
The machine/robot must:
The above scenario is far more complex than beating a human, even the best player, in chess. But, running an errand like that one is trivial for most adults. Just the driving part alone on today's roads is a tough problem.
How do we test whether man or machine is superior?
1. Does it matter who is surperior? These tests are just benchmarks for progress anyway.
2. Once you become a battery for robots.
3. Once a computer creates a beowulf cluster of you (in Soviet Russia).
Wouldn't AI have to exhibit a degree of emotion?
... will they tell good jokes? Being human isn't computational speed, it's experiencing the human way of living and expressing it. Visual art is one way to go, but there are robots working on that already.
What I want to see is a competition on par with "Whose Line Is It Anyways?" improv comedy. A robot that can create comedy instead of spouting it will count as human in my book. Paintings can be technically impressive without a common life-background, but you've gotta know what (human) life is to make a good (human) joke.
Not my point originally, but I forgot which author said it.
People used to foot-race early automobiles. People used to compare the productivity of a loom weaver to a steam powered automated loom. No one races cars any more but no one really questions if cars are superior to people. They are superior vehicles sure - because that's what they're designed to do.
A computer designed to play chess will eventually be able to beat any human player - but questions of superiority are superfluous. I'm not worried that Kasparov can beat me at chess because I'm not a chess player. He might be a superior chess player - hell, he's probably a superior person in many ways - so what? Does he win a cookie for that? Do I have to wear a scarlet letter? Is his superior chess ability mitigated because I could probably take him at one on one basketball? No.
The whole concept is basically stupid. Even when we build a true AI, put it in an andriod body and teach it to do everything better than we can do it - so what? If we managed to build Data from Star Trek - does that diminish us? If human ingenuity eventually allows us to build a superior human - that doesn't change anything really. Some people will feel the need to compete with it, some will ask if it has a soul and the rest of us will go on with our day.
The parent article talks about comparing man and machine - which is superior - the whole concept is superfluous. We don't compare man and tree or man and weather even though both can do things we can but better. Machines will always beat man in the end at something because otherwise why build them? If walking were in every way more efficient than taking a car, we wouldn't have cars. We build them to improve our ability to move. If the best chess-playing computer we could build would constantly get caught in the three move checkmate - there would be no freaking point. It is precisely because the machine will in some way, or even many ways, better that it exists.
Computers will definitelly be superior to humans when they are able to ace this test, wich, IMO, is better than Turing's:
History: Describe the history of the Papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating especially, but not exclusively, on its social, political, economic, religious and philosophical impact on Europe, Asia, America, and Africa. Be brief, concise, and specific.
Medicine: You have been provided with a razorblade, a piece of gauze, and a bottle of Scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until your work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.
Public Speaking: 2500 riot-crazed aborigines are storming the classroom. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin or Greek.
Biology: Create life. Estimate the differences in subsequent human culture if this life form had developed 500 million years earlier, with special attention to its probable effect on the English Parlimentary system. Prove
your thesis.
Music: Write a piano concerto. Orchestrate and perform it with flute and drum. You will find a piano under your seat.
Psychology: Based on your knowledge of their works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment, and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Alexander of Aphrodisis, Rameses II, and Hammuarabi. Support your
evaluation with quotations from each mans work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate.
Sociology: Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Construct an experiment to test your theory.
Engineering: The disassembled pieces of a high-powered rifle have been placed on your desk. You will also find an instruction manual, printed in Swahili.
In ten minutes, a hungry Bengal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take whatever action you feel necessary. Be prepared to justify your decision.
Economics: Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt. Trace the possible effects in the in the following areas: Cubism, the Donatist Controversy, and the Wave Theory of Light. Outline a method for preventing
these effects. Criticize this method from all possible points of view. Point out the deficiencies in your point of view, as demonstrated in your answer to the last question.
Political Science: There is a red telephone on the desk beside you. Start World War III. Report at lenght on its socio-political effects if any.
Epistemology: Take a stand for or against the truth. Prove the validity of your stand.
Physics: Explain the nature of matter.
Philosophy: Sketch the development of human thought. Estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought.
General Knowledge: Describe in detail. Be objective and specific.
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
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.
Actually, Fritz has less brute computational power than Deep Blue. Fritz runs on standard PCs; in this case, a quad 2.8 GHz Xeon. Deep Blue ran on custom hardware, with 32 RS/6000 CPUs with 256 custom VLSI "chess processors". It was estimated to evaluate 100,000,000 positions per second.
The point is, Fritz is not a bigger number cruncher; it's better because it's "smarter", which to say, it has a better ability to judge the value of each position and to choose which avenues to explore.
"steel drivin man"
The same with Paul Bunyon (well the Disney version anyway)
Machines have outplaced (for good reason) man in most forms of hard labor. They are better, tireless, and CHEAPER. Machines are better at menial tasks. Man cannot comptete.
Man can now further his endeavors in Art and explorataion. But most just waste the extra time.
When robots can have sex with humans and out score, then we should just give up. Until then I wouldn't worry.
Actually, I don't really think these Grand Master vs Chess Computer matchs mean anything. I think that each one of those super chess computers should be forced to earn a rank of grand master before having the match really count. Just because a machine can win a match or to against one master doesn't make it a master until it can beat many other masters and students... and teach students how to play the game.