To wrtie sidenotes and quesitosn an article

TO WRTIE SIDENOTES AND QUESITOSN AN ARTICLE SOFTWARE
TO WRTIE SIDENOTES AND QUESITOSN AN ARTICLE SERIES

Turing believed that limiting the interaction to typewritten text had вЂњthe advantage of drawing a fairly sharp line between the physical and intellectual capacities of a man.вЂќ 2Д«ut designing a computer that can, for example, carry on an ordinary conversation has turned out to be a particularly tough nut to crack. (b) The machine participants in TuringвЂ™s вЂњImitation GameвЂќ were disembodied by design in order to remove what he regarded as irrelevant cues.

TO WRTIE SIDENOTES AND QUESITOSN AN ARTICLE SERIES

If an astute judge cannot tell a machine and a human apart after a series of open-ended written exchanges, the machine would be judged to possess human-level intelligence. In 1950, Alan Turing proposed his now-famous вЂњTuring TestвЂќ of human-machine equivalence. This disembodied approach to intelligence has been favored by scientists since the early days of computer development. The only truly mechanical part of either design was WatsonвЂ™s ability to press the buzzer. Chess, with its closed set of rules and limited space of movements on a board that can easily be represented on a computer, and Jeopardy, with its ritual formula of answers and questions, provided engineers with programming challenges that did not require any coordination of complex physical movements. What Watson, Deep Blue, and many other attempts to build intelligent computers have in common is that they represent a disembodied approach to intelligence.

Although Watson did not have direct access to the Internet during the competition, engineers had built much of its database by searching the World Wide Web and storing a local copy of the information for later use. The primary new skill it displayed lay in deciphering the often cryptic Jeopardy clues in order to pursue a relatively straightforward search for factual information in a huge database. Watson beat its competition in similarly alien ways. Indeed, Deep Blue determined its next move using methods that no human player could match, checking thousands of combinations of moves each turn.

Kasparov spoke to Reuters of feeling as though his вЂњalien opponentвЂќ showed вЂњsigns of intelligenceвЂќ вЂ“ although of a kind that is not exactly human.

TO WRTIE SIDENOTES AND QUESITOSN AN ARTICLE SOFTWARE

In their 1997 rematch, Deep Blue returned to beat Kasparov using software that Kasparov denounced as targeted especially at his style of play. 1ДЄfter its predecessor Deep Thought lost to Kasparov in 1989, Deep Blue did a bit better in its first match against him in 1996, winning one game. Truly intelligent machines must also possess an embodied intelligence that goes beyond the skills of Deep Blue and Watson and enables machines to perceive and interact with their environments. This new understanding of cognition has enormous implications for the design of intelligent machines. In my last article for Footnote, I explored the evolving recognition that human and animal cognition is an embodied affair, involving not only our brains but our entire bodies and even the surrounding environment. Bloggers, journalists, and radio hosts were asking a question as old as the field of computer science itself: When will computing machines surpass human intelligence?Д«ut both Deep Blue and Watson exemplify a вЂњdisembodiedвЂќ approach to intelligence that has been strongly challenged by cognitive scientists, especially roboticists, in recent years. When IBMвЂ™s Watson supercomputer triumphed over two top Jeopardy champions in February 2011, the media buzzed with talk of artificial intelligence (AI), just as it had fourteen years earlier when WatsonвЂ™s predecessor, IBMвЂ™s Deep Blue, won a match with world chess champion Garry Kasparov.

To wrtie sidenotes and quesitosn an article