ASSIGNMENT # 1

Q#1: Read Turings original paper on AI(Turing, 1950). In the paper, he disusses
se!eral potential o"#etions to his proposed enterprise and his test $or intelligene.
%hih o"#etions still arr& so'e (eight) Are his re$utations !alid) *an &ou thin+
o$ ne( o"#etions arising $ro' de!elop'ent sine ho (rote the paper) In the paper,
he predits that, "& the &ear ,000, a o'puter (ill ha!e a -0. hane o$ passing a
$i!e/'inute Turing test (ith an uns+illed interrogator. %hat hane do &ou thin+ a
o'puter ha!e toda&) In another 50 &ears)
Two of the objections cited by Turing are worth considering further. Lady Lovelaces
Objection, first stated by Ada Lovelace, argues that comuter can only do as they told
and conse!uently can not erform original "hence, intelligent# actions. This objection has
become a reassuring if somewhat dubious art of contemorary technological fol$lore.
%&erts system esecially in the area of diagnostic reasoning, have reached conclusions
unanticiated by their designers. 'ndeed, a number of researchers feel that human
creativity can be e&ressed into comuter rogram.
The other related objection, the Argument from 'nformality of (ehavior, asserts the
imossibility of creating a set of rules that will tell an individual e&actly what to do under
every ossible set of circumstances. )ertainly, the fle&ibility that enables a biological
intelligence to resond to an almost infinite range of situations in a reasonable if not
necessarily otimal fashion in a hallmar$ of intelligent behavior. *hile it is true that the
control structure used in most traditional comuter rograms does not demonstrate great
fle&ibility or originality, it is not true that all rograms must be written in this fashion.
'ndeed, much of the wor$ in A' over the ast +, years has been to develo rogramming
languages and models such as roduction system, object based systems, networ$
reresentations, and others discussed in this te&t that attemt to overcome this deficiency.
'n another ,- years it is .-- / ossible.
Q#,: 0uppose (e e1tend 2!ans A3A4567 progra' so that it an sore ,00 on a
standard IQ test. %ould (e ha!e a progra' 'ore intelligent than a hu'an)
21plain.
'f we consider the '0 test the entire scoe of intelligence then yes, the rogram would be
more intelligent than the human. 1owever, the '0 test tests a humans intelligence in an
abstract sense, mostly reasoning. 'n the case of the A2ALO34 rogram, it solves those
roblems secifically. Anything that we consider intelligent outside the scoe is utterly
dismissed. The test would have to be e&anded to include all things that a human is
intelligent about in its scoe. Only then would an accurate comarison be achievable,
although !uite hilosohical, and oinionated.
Q#-: There are (ell/+no(n lasses o$ pro"le's that are intrata"l& di$$iult $or
o'puters, and other lasses that are pro!a"l& undeida"le. 8oes this 'ean that AI
is i'possi"le)
'f you were to encomass all classes of roblems into the word intelligence then you will
find that humans are comarable to machines in that some classes are difficult and some
are undecidable. To say that humans are not intelligent would robably not sit well with
the mast majority of us, so to say that A' is imossible would not be correct.
Q#9: 21a'ine the AI literature to diso!er (hether the $ollo(ing tas+s an
urrentl& "e sol!ed "& the o'puters:
(A).pla&ing the desent ga'e o$ ta"le tennis:
't seems ossible for a machine to lay table tennis as laying a descent game involves a
set of rules and we can install all the rules in the machines. 'f machine has learned all the
features than its easy for it to lay but there are some features that can only be felt by
human beings if machine is failed to understand these features then machine cant lat
game. These secial features involve the effect of weather as behavior of layer changes
with the change in weather. 1uman beings can also dodge the layer against them but
machine cant unless it is told to do so by installing such sort of functionality in it.
(:).dri!ing in the entre o$ *airo:
't is ossible for a machine to drive in the centre of )airo if the information of all the
ossible aths, roads, a&is and a roer ma is installed there inside the machine.
(*)."u&ing a (ee+s (orth o$ groeries at the 'ar+et:
*hile buying grocery at mar$et one has to interact with different tye of eole and it is
not ossible for a machine to interact with different tye of eole at the same time. 'n
mar$et each and every erson has his own style of mar$eting so it would be difficult for
the machine to go through the scenario.
(8). "u&ing a (ee+s (orth o$ groeries on the (e":
On web it is ossible for a machine to buy grocery as a machine can interact with another
machine in a better way. A machine after learning the related features can easily handle
the shoing on web and this communication between two machines is of one tye only.
(2).;la&ing a deent a ga'e o$ "ridge at a o'petiti!e le!el:
A decent game of bridge can currently be layed by comuters. Technologies used for
other games can be used by ma$ing modifications and introducing resective set of rules.
2ew versions of bridge game available these days emulate the way in which a human
might lan declarer lay in (ridge by using an adatation of hierarchical tas$ networ$
lanning.
(<).8iso!ering and pro!ing ne( 'athe'atial theore':
'n order to discover or rove any thing one should have a vast $nowledge of everything.
One should observe his surroundings and should deduce results from the ercetions and
it is difficult for a machine to observe its environment it can only be ossible if it is built
in the machine to observe what is haening around and than discover or rove. (ecause
machine wor$s by self !uestioning and roduce whatever installed in them.
(6). %riting an intentionall& $unn& stor&:
A machine can only write a funny story if such sort of functionality is stored in it.
(ecause it is not ossible for a machine to thin$ li$e a human being and only human
beings can write any thing intentionally after thin$ing as writing re!uires thin$ing and
machines cant thin$.
(=).gi!ing o'petent legal ad!ie in a speiali>ed area o$ la(:
't is ossible by roviding large amount of domain secific $nowledge.
(I).translating spo+en 2nglish into spo+en 0(edish in real ti'e
A comuter can currently translate so$en %nglish into so$en 5wedish in real time its a
very easy tas$ for a machine and machine translation is widely used for commercial,
technical and internet documents.
(?).per$or'ing a o'ple1 surgial operation:
An ordinary human being can not erform a comle& surgical oeration only a doctor can
do so because ha has the detail $nowledge of medical similarly a machine can erform a
comle& surgical oeration if we rovide it with all the necessary information.
Q#5: 0o'e authors ha!e lai'ed that pereption and 'otor s+ills are the 'ost
i'portant part o$ intelligene, and that higher le!el apaities are neessaril&
parasiti@si'ple add/ons to these underl&ing $ailities. *ertainl&, 'ost o$ e!olution
and a large part o$ the "rain ha!e "een de!oted to pereption and 'otor s+ills,
(hereas AI has $ound tas+s suh as ga'e pla&ing and logial in$erene to "e easier,
in 'an& (a&s, than perei!ing and ating in the real (orld. 8o &ou thin+ that AIs
traditional $ous on higher/le!el ogniti!e a"ilities is 'isplaed)
' believe that getting to the basics and develoing the underlying core A' functions is
robably the better lace to start. 5o, ersonally, ' would agree with those authors that
ercetion and motor s$ills are most imortant. (y starting from the most basic
intelligent form you are always increasing the scoe of what you can accomlish,
whereas, higher6level caacities always need to redefine. On the other hand, one often
ma$es brea$throughs into how to aroach the down, by loo$ing u "and visa versa#. 'n
addition, if we all concentrated our efforts to develo the ercetion and motor s$ills
asect of A', no real brea$throughs would occur until that one. *hereas, by e&loring in
many different directions, many things could be learned that all aid each field of research.
Therefore, to answer the !uestion only if all of our efforts were concentrated on higher6
level functions would ' consider A's traditional focus mislaced.
Q#A: 0urel& o'puters annot "e intelligent @the& do onl& (hat their progra''ers
tell the'.B Is the latter state'ent true, and does it i'pl& the $or'er)
The latter statement is true in the fact that a comuter will do only what their
rogrammers tell them. 1owever, its true only in the broadest sense of the word.
)onsider a rogram where the rogrammer rograms it to7
8nderstand its state
9a$e a decision
%&eriment
)reate a new action
)omare actions and otimi:e them
't is surely written by the rogrammer. (ut, since the rogram can create new actions and
e&eriment with them, how it acts initially may be very different then in the future. And,
since this very closely resembles what a human does to learn, one must state its
intelligent. Therefore, the statement does not imly the former.
Q#C: 0urel& ani'als annot "e intelligent @the& an do onl& (hat their genes tell
the'.B Is the latter state'ent true, and does it i'pl& the $or'er)
;rogrammers rogram both the brains and genes of the comuter. 5o, to say a comuter
does only what a rogrammer tells it to do is correct. 1owever, genes and brains of an
animal are different. *ell, sometimes, some animals dont have brains, and therefore,
only the genes tell them what to do and the statement is true. On the other hand, animals
with brains are rogrammed by the genes to figure it out by themselves do to the time
needed to ma$e decisions. The genes rovide the framewor$< the brain rovides the e&act
actions to roblems. =egardless, decisions have to be made, and in my definition
anything that is able to ma$e a decision is intelligent. 5o, the latter statement is true
sometimes, false sometimes, and neither way does it imly the former.
Q#D: @0urel& ani'als, hu'ans, and o'puters annot "e intelligent /@the& an do
onl& (hat their onstituent ato's are told to do "& the la(s o$ ph&sis.B Is the latter
state'ent true, and does it i'pl& the $or'er)
' would argue that it is the sum of the arts that matters. Although our atoms are bound to
the laws of hysics the fact still remains that when those atoms are groued in certain
configurations they allow agents to be aware of their environment and ma$e decisions.
Anything that ma$es a decision is considered intelligent.
Q#9: *reate and #usti$& &our o(n de$inition o$ AI)
8e$inition o$ AI:
Artificial 'ntelligence is the study of ideas and tas$s, erformed by human beings and
their alication on unnatural systems and to ma$e the systems erform those tas$s.
?usti$iation:
Artificial 'ntelligence includes only those tas$s which human beings can erform well.
Therefore tas$s li$e calculating real numbers can be better erformed by comuter
systems, and are not included in artificial intelligence. As ' have said in my definition that
A' includes tas$s and ideas, erformed by humans and their alication on unnatural
systems, so ' would first illustrate that how can it haens. Let us ta$e very simle
e&amles of human behaviors, as a erson who is color blind can study comuter vision,
a erson who is seech imediment builds e!uiment that tal$s, similarly in A' we ma$e
comuters lay intelligently li$e humans, although they dont have any natural
intelligence.
21a'ple:
*e can ta$e the e&amle of chess, which is well layed by human beings and now
researches are creating systems which can beat best human chess layer.
Q#10: *ritii>e Turings riteria $or o'puter so$t(are "eing @intelligentB.
The Turing test in site of its intuitive aeal is vulnerable to a number of justifiable
criticisms. One of the most imortant of these is aimed at its bias towards urely
symbolic roblem solving tas$s. 't does not test abilities re!uiring ercetual s$ills or
manual de&terity, even though these are imortant comonents of human intelligence.
)onversely, it is sometimes suggested that the Turing test needlessly constrains machine
intelligence to fit a human mold. ;erhas machine intelligence ' simly different from
human intelligence and trying to evaluate it in human terms is the fundamental mista$e.
'nfact, a number of modern A' ractitioners see resonding to the full challenge of
Turings test as a mista$e and a major distraction to the more imortant wor$ at hand7
develoing general theories to e&lain the mechanisms of intelligence in humans and
machines, and alying those theories to the develoment of tools to solve secific,
ractical roblems. Although we agree wit the >ord and 1ayes concerns in the large we
still see Turings test as an imortant comonent in the verification and validation of
modern A' software.
Q#11: 8esri"e &our o(n riteria $or o'puter so$t(are to "e onsidered
intelligent)
't is intelligent enough to be human, whether a real erson or just another comuter
rogram. The thing is, any rogram can never be any smarter than the rogrammer
who built the intelligence into the rogram. The roblem is the same as with
children, that children can learn from a mista$e and can '2>%= 2%* T1'235 from
facts already $nown. To date, 2O rogram can infer new things based on e&erience
which why today 2O rogram is considered intelligent even though the field is
called ?artificial intelligence?. 5ure, rograms can be rogrammed to handle all $inds
of situations,
2EAF;42:
1AL@--- in the movie ?+--.? is a case on oint. 1AL in any sense *A5 almost human,
but only because he was rogrammed to be so, not because he learned and inferred
new things from ast e&erience. 't is hard to thin$ of 1AL as 2OT being human
because his resonse was always human6li$e, which would ;A55 the Asimov test "'
thin$A# of who was on the other end that you were tal$ing to.
'n any rogram in the resent, the rogrammer decides what conditions to anticiate and
how to resond if that situation comes u in the normal course of things. 'f the
rogrammer is smart, he or she will anticiate many things, even things which are
way remote and so unli$ely your odds of winning the lottery loo$ huge by
comarison. (ut still, covering the bases does not ma$e for autonomous and for
being intelligent. >or a machine to become self6aware, to become autonomous, to be
self6directing in a situation not in the rogramming, now that would really be
somethingA The thing about being human is the ability to say no, and do something
comletely different, something which can not be construed as instinct, which is
nothing more than a hardwired resonse in the brain, which is really a form of
biological rogramming... 4ou can not change instinct. 1owever if you can do
another resonse through choice, only then do you begin to e&hibit a facet of
humanity... that which ma$es us human.
Q#1,7 Although o'puting is a relati!el& ne( disipline, philosophers and
'athe'atiians ha!e "een thin+ing a"out the issues in!ol!ed in auto'ating
pro"le' sol!ing $or thousands o$ &ears. %hat is &our opinion o$ the rele!ane o$
these philosophial issues to the design o$ a de!ie $or intelligent pro"le' sol!ing)
?usti$& &our ans(er.
=obotics was one of the research areas in A' that roduced many of the insights
suorting agent6oriented roblem solving. =esearch in lanning began as an effort to
design robots that could erform their tas$s with some degree of fle&ibility and
resonsiveness to the outside world. ;lanning assumes a robot that is caable of
erforming certain atomic actions. 't attemts to find a se!uence of those actions that will
accomlish some higher6level tas$, such as moving across an obstacle6filled room. %ven
an e&tremely simle robot is caable of generating a vast number of otential move
se!uences. >or e&amle, a robot that can move forward, bac$ward, right, or left, and
consider how many different ways that robot can ossibly move around a room. There are
obstacles in the room and that the robot must select a ath that moves around them in
some efficient fashion. *riting a rogram that can intelligently discover the best ath
under these circumstances, without being overwhelmed by the huge number of
ossibilities, re!uires sohisticated techni!ues for reresenting satial $nowledge and
controlling search through ossible environments.
One method that human beings use in lanning is hierarchical roblem decomosition.
%ach of these may be further decomosed into smaller sub roblems such as finding a
ma of the city, negotiating the subway system, and finding a decent ub. 2ot only does
this aroach effectively restrict the si:e of the sace that must be searched, but also
allows saving of fre!uently used sub lans for future use.
A robot that blindly erforms a se!uence of actions without resonding to changes in its
environment or being able to detect and correct errors in its own lan could hardly be
considered intelligent. Often, a robot will have to formulate a lan based on incomlete
information and correct its behavior as it e&ecutes the lan. A robot may not have
ade!uate sensors to locate all obstacles in the way of a rojected ath. 5uch a robot must
begin moving through the room based on what it has ?erceived? and correct its ath as
other obstacles are detected. Organi:ing lans in a fashion that allows resonse to
changing environmental conditions is a major roblem for lanning.
Q1-. 6i!en the di$$erenes "et(een the arhitetures o$ 'odern o'puters and that
o$ the hu'an "rain, (hat rele!ane does researh into the ph&siologial struture
and $untion o$ "iologial s&ste's ha!e $or the engineering o$ AI progra's) ?usti$&
&our ans(er.
*o'putational and 0&ste' :iolog& Researh:
The basic aim of this research is to foster cross discilinary collaboration between the
biomedical sciences, informatics, comutational science and a variety of other discilines
including mathematical and engineering sciences.
9ain research is to develo new comutational aroach called integrative data mining
that can assist systems biologists to direct the whole investigation rocess from
information gathering, analysis and interretation and incrementally imrove our
understanding and eventually gain a anorama of the biological systems. Bescribing the
system using connective networ$s, in which nodes reresent the system comonents and
edges reresent interactions between nodes. The networ$ describes the functional
relationshi among the system comonents, and the interactions ultimately determine an
organisms behavior and functions gaining insights into emergent roerties of biological
systems by means of analy:ing structural roerties and dynamics of the networ$.
Although much of the above discussion uses human intelligence as a reference oint in
considering artificial intelligence, it does not follow that rograms should attern
themselves after the organi:ation of the human mind. 'ndeed, many A' rograms are
engineered to solve some useful roblem without regard for their similarities to human
mental architecture. %ven e&ert systems, while deriving much of their $nowledge from
human e&erts, do not really attemt to simulate human internal mental roblem solving
rocesses. 'f erformance is the only criterion by which a system will be judged, there
may be little reason to attemt to simulate human roblem6solving methods< in fact,
rograms that ta$e nonhuman aroaches to solving roblems are often more successful
than their human counterarts. 5till, the design of systems that e&licitly model asects of
human erformance is a fertile area of research in both artificial intelligence and
sychology.
1uman erformance modeling, in addition to roviding A' with much of its basic
methodology, has roved to be a owerful tool for formulating and testing theories of
human cognition. The roblem6solving methodologies develoed by comuter scientists
have given sychologists a new metahor for e&loring the human mind. =ather than
casting theories of cognition in the vague language used in early research or abandoning
the roblem of describing the inner wor$ings of the human mind entirely "as suggested
by the behaviorists#, many sychologists have adoted the language and theory of
comuter science to formulate models of human intelligence. 2ot only do these
techni!ues rovide a new vocabulary for describing human intelligence, but also
comuter imlementations of these theories offer sychologists an oortunity to
emirically test, criti!ue, and refine their ideas "Luger .@@C#.