«

I've been thinking about this. The Turing is OK but it is subjective. We
will only really know if we have AI if one day someone is playing
patience and it goes like this:

Player: Give me a hint.
Computer: Slide the 6 of clubs under the 5 of hearts.
Player: Isn't that cheating?
Computer: Do you want to win the game or not?

Though I guess someone could build a routine to cheat.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles

On Feb 26, 9:21 am, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
> Enkidu wrote:
> > I've been thinking about this. The Turing is OK but it is subjective. We
> > will only really know if we have AI if one day someone is playing
> > patience and it goes like this:
>
> > Player: Give me a hint.
> > Computer: Slide the 6 of clubs under the 5 of hearts.
> > Player: Isn't that cheating?
> > Computer: Do you want to win the game or not?
>
> > Though I guess someone could build a routine to cheat.
>
> AI is an interesting topic. There are a few ways of it working:
>
> "Traditional" code that attempts to mimic natural behaviour.
>
> Software based neural systems that simulate the physical structures of the
> brain, and through the process develops a way of learning.
>
> Hardware based neural systems that do the same.

A clever guy where I worked wrote a number of game programs that
simply made the first valid move that it had never lost or drawn a
previous game already with. The games rapidly became almost
unbeatable.

In message <92949e32-9770-49f0-9f46->, Matty F wrote:

> A clever guy where I worked wrote a number of game programs that
> simply made the first valid move that it had never lost or drawn a
> previous game already with. The games rapidly became almost
> unbeatable.

How long did it take to do that with chess?