From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc Fri Jan 31 10:26:42 EST 1992
Article 3235 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
>From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Table-lookup Chinese speaker
Message-ID: <F9aaFB3w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: 29 Jan 92 00:01:02 GMT
References: <1992Jan24.185620.41411@spss.com>
Lines: 21

markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
> An analogy can be made with chess-playing computers.  
> Today computers can play chess, but they don't play it the same way 
> people do, and I think most people's intuitions would be that the ways
> people play chess (matching patterns, applying abstract rules) is more
> "intelligent" than the way computers do (using brute force to choose the
> best from among zillions of potential game sequences).  I don't think
> this analysis would have been very clear thirty years ago, before
> we had tried to build chess-playing computers.

Chess players also have "personalities."  They can be "bold" or
they can be "cautious."  There is even scope for being a "bad"
(=evil) chess player in competition with a "good" (=saintly)
player.  Can you convince a computer it is a bad computer in the
Turing test and expect to get mischievous answers?

--
Richard Carlson        |    rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Midtown Medical Center |    {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
Atlanta, Georgia       |
(404) 881-6877         |


