Reading the cited article will tell you that chess, as played by AI devices is a computational and algorithmic process, the very thing that even the 1st computers were good at and not what the AI community forecast. Today's computers are many orders of magnitude faster, have orders of magnitude larger databases and employ extremely sophisticated algorithims.
Game after game, computational trick after trick and we're nowhere near the Minsky or Moravic touted AI. Kurzweil is on safer ground mostly because he made his forecasts more recently and his prediction timeframes remain in the future, unlike his strong AI predicessors. Smart guys, but all of them overly rely on empirically observed curves that look like exponentials remaining as exponentials. On such a basis, my grandaughter will be 8 feet tall at maturity and growing even taller and faster. Real world physics and biology has a pesky way of confounding extrapolations not based on well understood and well confirmed fundamental laws.
Space/Science » in reply to Fruitflies, I am told, suck at chess.
Not Mead's point at all
The whole thread (38 posts)
- Quantum Mechanics Boondoggles, AI's Total Failure...The Notable Carver Mead Speaks
- That critique was so stupid, its an argument against (a particular) Human Intelligence, not a critique of Artificial Intelligence research
- Fruit fly is extraordinarily bad analogy for "intelligence"
- re: Quantum Mechanics Boondoggles, AI's Total Failure...The Notable Carver Mead Speaks
- Fruitflies, I am told, suck at chess.
- Nervous systems don't work like computers.
- Yeah, but...