Travis replied to me: > I see no reason that the proof is only for machines, it also applies > to methods or procedures that involve one or more people.
If those people follow an algorithm. Humans can decide not to do that. If computers deviate from their program, that must be programmed to start with. > If you require a solution to the halting problem as a proof of > intelligence, then I can easily prove that intelligence cannot exist > by your definition. I would consider that proof to be sufficient to > make your definition useless. I think the halting problem is just one example for a class of problems where computers (as we know them) fail and humans can succeed (or not). There may be AIs in the future, but I don't believe they will be based on the same principles as chess or go programs today. _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
