From: Grant Callaghan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed 23 Oct 2002 - 14:54:41 GMT
>Isn't Deep Blue just a souped-up main-frame having a bunch of pentium IIIs
>as nodes together computing in parallel?
>Yes. But Gary Casparov said that "Deep Blue could think", and apart from
>being a pretty smart bloke, World Chess Master and all that, I think it was
>a judgement call he was in a good position to make. I have always thought
>that the Turing test was inappropriate as it assumed AI would be a mirror
>of human intelligence.
>Unfortunately I will be away for a couple of days on business. I will look
>forward to continuing the debate when I get back.
I have read since the match between Deep Blue and Kasparov it was revealed
that the Deep Blue's programmer was adjusting the program during the match.
That may have given Kasparov the impression it was Deep Blue that was
thinking. My impression is that the programmer was the only one doing any
thinking. Since what a computer does is something planned and manipulated,
like a puppeteer pulling Pinochio's strings, by a programmer, I can't really
call what it does "thinking."
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 23 Oct 2002 - 14:59:16 GMT