Deep Blue is better (rematches notwithstanding). Gary Kasparov could not beat Deep Blue, and Kasparov is as good as any chess player has been and perhaps ever will be. Has Deep Blue threatened these beliefs? What, in light of Deep Blue’s victory, should the rational person believe? Now, perhaps more than ever, is the time to re-examine the idea that computers can simulate our own minds. We have long believed in (and for good reason) the uniqueness of our minds, and their qualitative distinctiveness from purely material things such as computers. The rest of us, less schooled in the technicalities of computer programming, no doubt are confused about the meaning of Deep Blue’s victory and what it says about our humanity. Researchers in artificial intelligence (AI) are no doubt pointing to the victory as a crucial step in what they already see as inevitable - that, there being no essential difference between mind and machine, machines are, and will continue to become, more mind-like. The recent hysteria over the defeat of world chess champion Gary Kasparov by IBM computer Deep Blue has provided fresh fuel for the debate over whether computers can be intelligent and, yes, even exhibit the other qualities of mind - consciousness, sensation, emotion and the like. Larson SeptemTechnology Published in Origins & Design 18, no.
Rethinking Deep Blue Why a Computer Can't Reproduce a Mind Erik J. Share Facebook Twitter Print arroba Email