On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 12:59 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
> PD. The only explanation I find to the "need" of the word artificial
> is
> the (for me totally unexplainable) respect educated Anglo-Saxons have
> for religion. This way, it looks compatible with religion, but of
> course
> it isn't.
The word in AI I don't feel conformable with is Artificial, not
Intelligence. I use _Abstract_ Intelligence (also AI) as a replacement.
Have you ever heard of artificial aerodynamics (applicable to planes but
not to birds) or artificial thermodynamics (the same). I understand that
AI is the sci
Can computer intelligence replace that of human?
?
This question comes up often. Actually it's not a philosophical
question,because it has an exact scientific answer. Even though this answer is
based on an important scientifc axiom that I will mention.
So a computer can lock human out of the co
>> >Warning: Cynical Definition...
>> >
>> > My definition of AI is any algorithm that is new in computer
>> science.
Too much of an assumption here: That we should be designing & using
_algorithms_!
A good piece of what puts a problem/program in the realm of AI is the need
to use "heurist
Sorry, it is TrueSkill and not TrueScore.
http://research.microsoft.com/mlp/trueskill/
Chrilly
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Slesinsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "computer-go"
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Slides for Vil
On 7/21/07, chrilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you feed more data/games
the quality of prediction increases. It is in fact a weakness of the
Elo-Rating that this is not taken into account (newer systems like TrueScore
do).
Can you provide a link to TrueScore? My searches are coming up empty
On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 02:02 +0900, Hideki Kato wrote:
> >Warning: Cynical Definition...
> >
> > My definition of AI is any algorithm that is new in computer
> > science. Once the algorithm becomes accepted then it's
> > not AI, it's just a boring algorithm.
>
> I agree half of t
chrilly: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Below is my favorite one in the list. An example of this are
>neural-networks. Neural networks are just a parameter-free
>optimization/estimation method.
>No magic at all, just a boring and not very efficient estimator.
It's not neural networks but just a perceptro
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 17:47 +0200, chrilly wrote:
> Below is my favorite one in the list. An example of this are
> neural-networks. Neural networks are just a parameter-free
> optimization/estimation method.
> No magic at all, just a boring and not very efficient estimator.
> Chrilly
>
> Warning
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 17:37 +0200, chrilly wrote:
> In this sense the Elo-System is an AI algorithm.
I found this interesting site that may be vaguely related - it implies
that ELO is a better way to measure intelligence and provides a
methodology:
http://home.earthlink.net/~bmcgaugh/eloiq.h
Below is my favorite one in the list. An example of this are
neural-networks. Neural networks are just a parameter-free
optimization/estimation method.
No magic at all, just a boring and not very efficient estimator.
Chrilly
Warning: Cynical Definition...
My definition of AI is any alg
How would you define modern AI? Obviously it is not the classic approach
to
mimic humans anymore. But what is it?
For me it is when "we" (I was not there :-)) become less philosophical
and more precise about what we want. We want a system which use data
to improve itself in order to adapt to uns
Chrilly, your definition of AI is too limited. See, for example,
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/definitions.of.ai.html.
Regards,
Hideki (gg)
chrilly: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> However, I have to disagree with this statement:
>> "UCT: Complete Antithesis to AI-approach"
>>
>Martin Mueller quot
I generally also disagree with your statement - but I would point out
that it's difficult to reason about this without a clear definition of
AI. AI gets redefined every time the magic is understood. I think it
largely comes down to semantics.
UCT fits just about any definition of AI more than
Hi Chrilly,
It was always the goal of McCarthy and his followers to simulate and to surpass
the human mind. (...)
UCT has nothing to do with human Go. It has some similarity to the behaviour
of ant-collonies (its not in the technical sense an ant-colony algo). It was
never the goal of AI to expla
> However, I have to disagree with this statement:
> "UCT: Complete Antithesis to AI-approach"
>
Martin Mueller quotes J.McCarthy in his thesis:
"The research of Go programs is still in its infancy, but we shall see that to
bring Go programs to a level comparable with current Chess programs,
inve
Hi Chrilly,
I am sorry about your fight with a dog, and I hope you are ok!
I read your slides: interesting point of view, whereas you seem a
little frustrated. Thank you for sharing your opinion.
However, I have to disagree with this statement:
"UCT: Complete Antithesis to AI-approach"
I reall
17 matches
Mail list logo
