Artificial Intelligence Information Intelligent Design Mind News

From LiveScience: “IBM scientists spent years constructing Deep Blue, and all it could do was play chess”

Spread the love

info, information, tips, icon, support From Jesse Emspak at LiveScience:

What Is Intelligence? 20 Years After Deep Blue, AI Still Can’t Think Like Humans

“Good as they are, [computers] are quite poor at other kinds of decision making,” said Murray Campbell, a research scientist at IBM Research. “Some doubted that a computer would ever play as well as a top human.

“The more interesting thing we showed was that there’s more than one way to look at a complex problem,” Campbell told Live Science. “You can look at it the human way, using experience and intuition, or in a more computer-like way.” Those methods complement each other, he said.

Although Deep Blue’s win proved that humans could build a machine that’s a great chess player, it underscored the complexity and difficulty of building a computer that could handle a board game. IBM scientists spent years constructing Deep Blue, and all it could do was play chess, Campbell said. Building a machine that can tackle different tasks, or that can learn how to do new ones, has proved more difficult, he added. More.

One obvious reason is that human intelligence is far more than computational power, but the nerds will still be figuring that one out years from now.

See also: Deep learning is easy to fool? Researchers: Our results shed light on interesting differences between human vision and current DNNs, and raise questions about the generality of DNN computer vision.

and

Data basic: An introduction to information theory

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “From LiveScience: “IBM scientists spent years constructing Deep Blue, and all it could do was play chess”

  1. 1
    Barry Arrington says:

    This points to why the Lovelace Test has replaced the Turing Test with respect to whether a computer can ever be considered to have consciousness.

  2. 2
    LocalMinimum says:

    Chess being so entry level, I can’t help but think this was a hardware demo rather than any kind of software achievement. Adding in that it had a team tuning it between games, the secrecy in its design, and that Kasparov wasn’t allowed the opportunity to demonstrate his ability to learn and adapt through a rematch, it really seems more of a marketing stunt than any technological milestone.

    It’s a lot more sophisticated than a guy hiding in a box under an animatronic head with a microphone, at the least.

  3. 3
    asauber says:

    So what we can say is that a team of chess programmers beat Kasparov with a giant calculating tool.

    Andrew

Leave a Reply