Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!uni-paderborn.de!golden-gate.owl.de!fu-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-erlangen.de!uni-regensburg.de!lrz-muenchen.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!sun4nl!news.nic.surfnet.nl!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!primus.ac.net!news.cais.net!wb3ffv!rwd!pdarnows
From: pdarnows@rwd.goucher.edu (Commander Space Dog)
Subject: Re: AI and NPCs
Message-ID: <DLyJ76.ArG@rwd.goucher.edu>
Organization: Goucher College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <17709882CS86.U249026@vm.uci.kun.nl>  <4djdkl$e1j@igor.rutgers.edu> <4e9v8n$ru2@gateway1.brisnet.org.au>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 19:23:30 GMT
Lines: 20

root (dancer@brisnet.org.au) wrote:
: Bozzie (edharel@eden-backend.rutgers.edu) wrote:
: : In article <1770BACC1S86.U249026@vm.uci.kun.nl>
: : U249026@vm.uci.kun.nl (Branko Collin) writes:

: : Exactly.  If you had a program that played chess and won all the time,
: : and you had one that did the same strategy as chess winners, which
: : would be more intelligent?  A programmer would say the first (always
: : wins, therefore it's smart and intelligent).  A psychologist might say
: : the second (acts like a human).  In fact both of these are not
: : intelligence.

I would propose that a program that used a human-like strategy, but also 
had the capacity to learn from past mistakes, would better fit a 
reasonable definition of intelligence than either of those two.
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|     "No matter what happens, we'll still be able to enjoy cheese."          |
|                 -The Hon. Dr. Bruce "Eddie" Zambini                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
