Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Education Technology

Comparing Man and Machine? 97

Posted by Cliff from the apples-and-watermellons dept.
An anonymous reader asks: "Today Garry Kasparov's last of 4 chess matches with the computer X3D Fritz ended in a draw. The totals of all 4 games leave the two opponents tied 2 to 2, revealing that even though the technology has advanced significantly since Kasparov was beaten by IBM's Deep Blue in 1997, the odds are not always on the side of brute computational power. This leads me to pose the question: is chess really a viable way to test whether man or machine is truly superior? Until AI becomes flexible enough to challenge us in arenas like art and music, what would be a better real-life competition?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comparing Man and Machine? More

Comparing Man and Machine?

Comments Filter:

  • The obvious answer (Score:4, Funny)

    by Fux the Penguin ( 724045 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @03:54PM (#7513265) Journal
    Obviously, the steel-cage no holds barred death match is the answer.

  • Go? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spectral ( 158121 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @03:56PM (#7513276)
    I'm sure someone will mention Go, just because it's always said that it's much harder to get a computer to do. But I don't see the point of playing games against computers anyway, what does it really prove? It proves that the data fed in to it (from hundreds of sources) and the (several) programmers are better at logically defeating a game than ONE person is. I'm amazed he won two games, this says far more about him than it does about anything else.

    What exactly are these contests trying to prove anyway? When the computers gain a clear victory over the humans, what have we learned?
    • While I agree with your first paragraph, I think the point of these contests is not the outcome but rather the process by which the computers are taught to analyze. These help to push the study of both computer and human thought.
    • I think the point of playing games against computers is that there are times (like when I'm done with a real bitch of a Java class at 2:30 am and need to unwind before I crash) that one just can't find a human opponent.
      • real bitch of a Java class
        You need to visit my High School AP Java class. Open book, multiple choice tests, three days to finish a 20 minute programming assignment, and two of the computers already cracked to run Warcraft II and GTA Vice City.
        • Ahem.

          I mean a Java class as in:

          class LoadData {

          yada yada yada

          }

          as in a class in Java is an object, a construct -- a part of the language.

          There is no way on Earth I'd ever be up at 2:30 am doing anything for the other type of class. (I never was a good student.)

          We're talking about the real world here.
    • I'm sure someone will mention Go, just because it's always said that it's much harder to get a computer to do.

      Computers play chess well because of the massive amount of human effort that people have expended in creating Chess programs. Although brute force computing explains some of the rise in performance of chess programs, the sophistication and efficiency of the algorithms has also improved.

      When Go recieves the same level of programmer's effort, I'd bet that Go programs will get much better. Then
      • the sophistication and efficiency of the algorithms has also improved

        That exactly because of this "improved algorithm" that Fritz lost the third game. Fritz believed that "moving the pawns in front of its king is bad". While this is true in 99% of the case, it is a bad idea to force the AI with such a blind rule. Maybe less complex algorithms with more horsepower would have won this game (Or lost less pitifully).
    • What exactly are these contests trying to prove anyway? When the computers gain a clear victory over the humans, what have we learned?

      A very worthy question, spectral. The contests prove the power of software to encapsulate and augment human thinking processes. As a software engineer I only need create and develop an algorithm in my head once (and slowly). By writing that algorithm in software I can then execute that mental process very quickly, multiple times, and multiple places. And with team effo

    • Re:Go? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Telastyn ( 206146 )
      Well because games will be the first thing that still is considered "thought" where a computer will beat men.

      Computers can beat humans at repetative tasks, or calculation, but these do not involve decision making. Games are good for computers because they have a finite set of rules [which a computer needs] and an infinite set of decisions [which is an excellent test on AI].

      Go in particular is a fantastic test for computers because it adds 2 other tests/problems. Firstly, it truly has infinite moves. Not r

  • This isn't a test of which is superior (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RaboKrabekian ( 461040 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @03:56PM (#7513283) Journal
    This isn't a test of whether man or machine is superior. This is a test of whether man or machine is superior at chess.

    Eventually machine will probably always be superior. For now they're about equal.
    • The best machine is about equal to the best man at chess. Mediocre machines are better than most people now (most people can't play chess nearly at all).

    • This is a test of whether man or machine is superior at chess.
      Exactly. In terms of more general superiority, my question is always, "Now, let's see that chess-playing program write a book that explains how to play chess to other people." Any of the good chess players that I've met could write something, and most of the great players have written multiple books on the subject.
      • Many good - as opposed to excellent or great - players can teach chess really well. I don't have any stats, but lots of great players can't teach as well as the mediocre/good players who teach for a living and produce champions.

        I'm not talking about writing books, though, just real-time teaching.
      • "Now, let's see that chess-playing program write a book that explains how to play chess to other people."

        I don't remember which novel this was in, but they knew they had a real AI when it refused to take any more Turing tests, claiming that they were pointless :-)

  • Intelligence (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fux the Penguin ( 724045 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @03:58PM (#7513295) Journal
    I'd like to see something that really measures intelligence, and I don't think chess necessarily does that.

    I would say (this is just my definition; take it for what it's worth :) ) intelligence is when something is self-aware and can develop NEW thoughts (ie. learn). Computers aren't really smart and likely won't be for a long time because they don't do anything NEW. All they do is to go through pre-defined algorithms, and use pre-defined techniques. Even so-called learning algorithms are very primitive and very little new thoughts are generated.

    If someone can design a computer that comes up with totally new thoughts, it is intelligent in my book. So, instead of just using existing algorithms, if a computer can create a totally new algorithm, it is intelligent...

    Having said that, if computers become intelligent, we'll have all sorts of problems...
    • Computers vs Humans in chess is a fun competition. Its been going on for a while as programmers have finally put forth programs competitive at the highest levels.

      There is actually quite a bit of room to grow for these competitions. As the programs get better, they could be forced to play by more "fair" rules.

      They could be required to play without human tweaks between matches (but will be allowed computer analysis and adjustment).

      There could be a requirement to play a normal style tournament where they
    • If someone can design a computer that comes up with totally new thoughts, it is intelligent in my book.

      Problem is, a large percentage of the human race doesn't fit your definition. Truly new thoughts (as opposed to a scrambled remix of existing ones) are rare; even the creative minority of humans don't have them often.

  • Testing a human vs. a machine in terms of chess is really, as far as I can tell, a way to see whether or not that specific computer (program) can beat that specific human at chess at a specific point in time. It doesn't tell us that much about superiority or the intelligence of one over the other. I would say once we understand what intelligence is really really well, then we can start to say these sorts of things. But intelligence doesn't equal who wins the game of chess.

    Can the computer cook an omele

  • for me it just reveals that ibm had more dope programmers and a lot more dope hardware than four xeons.

    .

  • Run an Errand (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DaRat ( 678130 ) * on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:02PM (#7513343)

    Give a machine vague instructions on how to run an errand like going to buy your favorite decongestant and chips. In today's world, running this simple errand is easy for people, but extremely difficult for machines.

    The machine/robot must:

    • determine what you mean by favorite.
    • decide where to go that probably will have these items (remember, current real world, no online checking/delivery).
    • Decide how to get there.
    • Get there. If "driving", navigate the roads to this store, a difficult problem.
    • Find the items in the store, handling situations where one or both items isn't in the first store.
    • Pay for the items and get back.

    The above scenario is far more complex than beating a human, even the best player, in chess. But, running an errand like that one is trivial for most adults. Just the driving part alone on today's roads is a tough problem.

    • Simple:
      • Check buying habits for favorite foods on PeaPod [peapod.com].
      • Place order for most bought chips/decongestant by your account.
      • You: Wait for PeaPod delivery to arrive.
      ;-) (of course)
    • But those things aren't intelligence, alone. They require intelligence, but they have components to them that aren't intelligence at all, unless it is acceptable to use specialized hardware (for steering, etc).
      • They may not be intelligence in it's entirety for us, but as someone else said in an earlier post, Intelligence for a computer is in learning. So if the computer is able to learn to distiguish your favorite and learn how to drive, It is most certainly a very intelligent machine
  • It's because the machines live in a world that's based on rules. But us humans know that those rules can be bent, even broken.

    It's a contest between creativity and speed. Do the machines incorporate metacognition in order to adjust their strategies and perform optimally, or do they just follow one dumb algorithm over and over? That's where the difference lies. Speed of computation might work sometimes, but other times there's a much simpler solution just waiting for someone with a flexible enough mind
  • How do we test whether man or machine is superior?

    1. Does it matter who is surperior? These tests are just benchmarks for progress anyway.

    2. Once you become a battery for robots.

    3. Once a computer creates a beowulf cluster of you (in Soviet Russia).

  • Wouldn't AI have to exhibit a degree of emotion?
    • No, it's only neccesary that the art or music appears to display a degree of emotion. There is no reason this can't be simulated (at least in some half-assed way) by a computer. And eventually I think it could fool the judges too. Why not?

      Furthermore, what do you mean by emotions anyway? Chemicals in your brain? I believe that eventually, computers will achieve something that fits most reasonable definitions of emotion. (i.e. not defined as "a feeling a human gets)
      • I'm thinking in terms of artistic emotion, ie the creative rush that causes (eg) a painter to paint what he sees how he does, which defines his indivual style making it instantly recognisable as a (eg) Picasso. Surely for that, AI would have to be totally free thinking and able to absorb environments and surroundings much as we do.
    • That's a really, really good question. Unfortunately it would take a heapload aesthetics and literary theory to answer it. Short answer: both "yes" (for a machine to recognize that something it is doing will have an emotional effect and so is art would require AI) and no (if it's ok for the machine to churn stuff out and the human viewers to decide that it's art despite there being no emotional content added by the machine author).

  • The only thing that really matters is ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mike_lynn ( 463952 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:17PM (#7513488)
    ... will they tell good jokes? Being human isn't computational speed, it's experiencing the human way of living and expressing it. Visual art is one way to go, but there are robots working on that already.

    What I want to see is a competition on par with "Whose Line Is It Anyways?" improv comedy. A robot that can create comedy instead of spouting it will count as human in my book. Paintings can be technically impressive without a common life-background, but you've gotta know what (human) life is to make a good (human) joke.

  • Can't Remember Who Said It... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Inexile2002 ( 540368 ) * on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:17PM (#7513497) Homepage Journal
    Not my point originally, but I forgot which author said it.

    People used to foot-race early automobiles. People used to compare the productivity of a loom weaver to a steam powered automated loom. No one races cars any more but no one really questions if cars are superior to people. They are superior vehicles sure - because that's what they're designed to do.

    A computer designed to play chess will eventually be able to beat any human player - but questions of superiority are superfluous. I'm not worried that Kasparov can beat me at chess because I'm not a chess player. He might be a superior chess player - hell, he's probably a superior person in many ways - so what? Does he win a cookie for that? Do I have to wear a scarlet letter? Is his superior chess ability mitigated because I could probably take him at one on one basketball? No.

    The whole concept is basically stupid. Even when we build a true AI, put it in an andriod body and teach it to do everything better than we can do it - so what? If we managed to build Data from Star Trek - does that diminish us? If human ingenuity eventually allows us to build a superior human - that doesn't change anything really. Some people will feel the need to compete with it, some will ask if it has a soul and the rest of us will go on with our day.

    The parent article talks about comparing man and machine - which is superior - the whole concept is superfluous. We don't compare man and tree or man and weather even though both can do things we can but better. Machines will always beat man in the end at something because otherwise why build them? If walking were in every way more efficient than taking a car, we wouldn't have cars. We build them to improve our ability to move. If the best chess-playing computer we could build would constantly get caught in the three move checkmate - there would be no freaking point. It is precisely because the machine will in some way, or even many ways, better that it exists.
    • Walking is more efficient than a car... the human process for digesting food and producing energy is more efficient than any internal combustion engine. Taking a car is *faster*, and so are computers, but you trade-off flexibility (being able to scramble over boulders, say). I agree with you in principle, but the reason we use things is not that they are more efficient in general, it's that they are faster with the trade-off of generality.
    • The whole concept is basically stupid. Even when we build a true AI, put it in an andriod body and teach it to do everything better than we can do it - so what?

      Well, some people's perception of their place in this world is that we are somehow superior (as an intelligent species) to anybody else. So we get quite uncomfortable when some of our "uniqueness" is replicated by a bunch of wires.

      Personally, I'm ok with that, but many others aren't hence the heated debates about who runs faster, who looms faster
    • Wait, now its all well and good if machines are better at some things than humans, but if they really did make a machine that was better at everything humans do, I'm not really so sure you'll have the luxury of going on with your day so cavalierly--exactly what are you planning to do all day to earn your bread if machines can do anything you can do more cheaply?

      • Wait, now its all well and good if machines are better at some things than humans, but if they really did make a machine that was better at everything humans do, I'm not really so sure you'll have the luxury of going on with your day so cavalierly--exactly what are you planning to do all day to earn your bread if machines can do anything you can do more cheaply?

        That is sooooo far away from being a concern to me that I'm not going to worry about it. I think I'll put that on my list of things to worry abou

        • For an awful lot of unemployed and uneducated manufacturers in this world, this is far off alright--far off in the past. The 80s, actually. It's a gradual, continuous thing--the machines slowly get better, the labor market gets more competitive, until it's simply too competitive for the vast majority of humans to be useful to industry any longer. The eventualities, possibilities, etc. won't necessarily be up to "us"--they'll be up to whoever has the power.
      • exactly what are you planning to do all day to earn your bread if machines can do anything you can do more cheaply?

        In a sane society, machine labor would make us all rich, not just a plutocratic minority; and I'd be writing poetry and doing recreational hacking all day while the machines made the bread. (This, obviously, ain't such a society.)

  • Easy one (Score:4, Funny)

    by Molina the Bofh ( 99621 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:19PM (#7513516) Homepage
    Computers will definitelly be superior to humans when they are able to ace this test, wich, IMO, is better than Turing's:

    History: Describe the history of the Papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating especially, but not exclusively, on its social, political, economic, religious and philosophical impact on Europe, Asia, America, and Africa. Be brief, concise, and specific.

    Medicine: You have been provided with a razorblade, a piece of gauze, and a bottle of Scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until your work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.

    Public Speaking: 2500 riot-crazed aborigines are storming the classroom. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin or Greek.

    Biology: Create life. Estimate the differences in subsequent human culture if this life form had developed 500 million years earlier, with special attention to its probable effect on the English Parlimentary system. Prove
    your thesis.

    Music: Write a piano concerto. Orchestrate and perform it with flute and drum. You will find a piano under your seat.

    Psychology: Based on your knowledge of their works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment, and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Alexander of Aphrodisis, Rameses II, and Hammuarabi. Support your
    evaluation with quotations from each mans work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate.

    Sociology: Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Construct an experiment to test your theory.

    Engineering: The disassembled pieces of a high-powered rifle have been placed on your desk. You will also find an instruction manual, printed in Swahili.
    In ten minutes, a hungry Bengal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take whatever action you feel necessary. Be prepared to justify your decision.

    Economics: Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt. Trace the possible effects in the in the following areas: Cubism, the Donatist Controversy, and the Wave Theory of Light. Outline a method for preventing
    these effects. Criticize this method from all possible points of view. Point out the deficiencies in your point of view, as demonstrated in your answer to the last question.

    Political Science: There is a red telephone on the desk beside you. Start World War III. Report at lenght on its socio-political effects if any.

    Epistemology: Take a stand for or against the truth. Prove the validity of your stand.

    Physics: Explain the nature of matter.

    Philosophy: Sketch the development of human thought. Estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought.

    General Knowledge: Describe in detail. Be objective and specific.

    • Slashdot: Moderate the following thread at -1.

    • Medicine: You have been provided with a razorblade, a piece of gauze, and a bottle of Scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until your work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.


      Machines have appendixes?
      • Keep in mind this test's purpose is to know what would be a better (than chess) real-life competition. And I said in the beginning of the message that this was better than Turing's.

        If a machine is capable of emulating an appendix, than it's too damn good.
        • It would be a superior human indeed that aced that test.
          However, methinks that grading that test probably would be a better test of intelligence than taking it. It is not at all clear even how one oculd determine if one answer is better than another.

          I suspect that as computers become more and more "intelligent", it will become more and more a case of "Smart humans, dumb computers". Computers do not know what they do not know, and do not know that they do not know it. Humans sometimes get an inkling that th
    • As for Biology, humans haven't really created life, with at least any sensible conception of the word "created".

      Some of the points try to relate absurd things, how would the implementation of a realistic plan to refinance the national debt have any predictable effect on cubism?
    • That's way too many questions. You could do it with just one: Define universe-give two examples.
  • Go. Wei-chi. Baduk.

    Chess is simple calculation compared to the nuanced give and take of Go. There is only one move: place a stone on a point; there is no end to the possibilities.

    I am a less than average Go player and I can easily beat the best available Go AI.
    • Naw. Eventually (depending on popularity) computers will beat more and more people at Go. It's just another game, solvable with clever programming and brute force.

      I'd like to see computers get better and better at parsing language and creating appropriate responses given some information they know.
      • You either don't know Go or don't know AI. It is not a brute force problem and the difficulties in solving it are not a matter of popularity.

        Start with this [univ-paris8.fr] paper. Frankly, NLP is far ahead of GO AI.

  • Fritz vs Blue (Score:4, Informative)

    by Chris Pimlott ( 16212 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:30PM (#7513640)
    even though the technology has advanced significantly since Kasparov was beaten by IBM's Deep Blue in 1997, the odds are not always on the side of brute computational power.

    Actually, Fritz has less brute computational power than Deep Blue. Fritz [chessbase.com] runs on standard PCs; in this case, a quad 2.8 GHz Xeon. [x3dchess.com] Deep Blue [wikipedia.org] ran on custom hardware, with 32 RS/6000 CPUs with 256 custom VLSI "chess processors". It was estimated to evaluate 100,000,000 positions per second.

    The point is, Fritz is not a bigger number cruncher; it's better because it's "smarter", which to say, it has a better ability to judge the value of each position and to choose which avenues to explore.
  • If only men from the future could send a T1000 back in time, and kill all the guys who are just gonna post "sky-net" related posts, before they were born...
  • is chess really a viable way to test whether man or machine is truly superior?

    Define superior.

    Does it mean able to win more chess games in this case? If so, in what other ways (if any) does this make that particular computer superior to humans?

  • Remember the story of John Henry? (Score:3, Informative)

    by xagon7 ( 530399 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2003 @04:55PM (#7513908)
    "steel drivin man"

    The same with Paul Bunyon (well the Disney version anyway)

    Machines have outplaced (for good reason) man in most forms of hard labor. They are better, tireless, and CHEAPER. Machines are better at menial tasks. Man cannot comptete.

    Man can now further his endeavors in Art and explorataion. But most just waste the extra time.
  • Now I know what all those "Slashdot editors don't read slashdot" posts are about. Also that weird feeling of deja-vu I got when reading this article... (Very similar article was posted yesterday).
    Read all about it here [slashdot.org], including all those "HA HA we're still the best, computers can't play Go" posts you always get.
  • Until AI becomes flexible enough to challenge us in arenas like art and music, what would be a better real-life competition?

    That would be the Turing Test.
  • One thing I find annoying about these matches is the entire 'virtual reality' crap. Now, let me state straight off that I am a video game animator, and I love the 3D medium and virtual reality is also a very cool concept; however I greatly question its authenticity and relevance in this match.

    First off, the fact that its virtual reality has not change the game, we know this. Secondly, the entire 3D aspect of the game is fairly pointless except to view the board from different positions. However, consider

  • Sex... (Score:2, Funny)

    by kabocox ( 199019 )
    When robots can have sex with humans and out score, then we should just give up. Until then I wouldn't worry.

    Actually, I don't really think these Grand Master vs Chess Computer matchs mean anything. I think that each one of those super chess computers should be forced to earn a rank of grand master before having the match really count. Just because a machine can win a match or to against one master doesn't make it a master until it can beat many other masters and students... and teach students how to play
  • Every time this question comes around again (and I'm not saying it shouldn't), I'm reminded of one of my favorite computer science quotes:

    "Asking whether computers can think is like asking whether submarines can swim" -- Dijkstra

    G

  • When a computer not designed to play chess beats most human grandmasters at chess.

    Just let the chess engine go off and learn on it's own (a parent program would instruct good/bad of the rules of chess)
    What I really like about this, is that the chess engine has the ability to cheat, though it doesn't because it knows it'll lose the game... the program has a will?

    -metric
    • Well, how would you know if the computer cheated because presumably it would cheat if it could get away with it...otherwise it becomes another rule the computer cannot violate ("No Cheating" in this case...)

      • The rules of chess wouldn't be programmed into the chess engine. Instead they are programmed into the parent program watching over the games. If the child makes an invalid move, the game is instantly lost and the child will remember not to do that if it wants to win. The child program's chess motives would be derived fully from previous games it has played. Like a chess-based self identity.

        -metric
    • All the current man vs. machine matches are really man vs. programmers. It proves nothing about the computer, it shows that a grandmaster can play chess better than a bunch of programmers can code. But if the computer learns a game(be it chess or any other) and developes its own strategy, then we are getting closer. Then, if the computer has the ability to rewrite and modify itself; evolve past the designs of the humans, then we have have a real game on our hands.
  • go would be a good game to try man vs. machine.
    any classical boardgame really, where randomness has nothing do with it, such as a roll of the dice.

    Also, Dance Dance Revolution would be a bad game for that challenge :P

  • Obviously it depends on what you are testing but if the criteria are intelligence and adaptability I'd take a black-box approach (where 'two systems can be considered equal when they produce the same output from the same input').

    As humans are chaotic, ie. the same human given a set of stimuli may not react in exactly the same way to identical stimuli a few seconds later and two different humans will almost certainly react differently, this has to be redefined as 'two systems that, when given the same input
  • $ man machine
    No manual entry for machine

    Wonder what that means?
  • Chess may be a good way of testing the capabilities of a computer vs. the capabilities of a man in this current stage of technology, but it won't be long before chess become a game like tic tac toe. There are only so many different possibilities in the game of chess, therefore it won't be long before the entire game play tree is available for the machine in which it only has to choose the branch with the least possible win situations for the opponent. This will obviously never be possible for the human.

Slashdot Top Deals

Polymer physicists are into chains.

Close