2. Philosophy - Stefano Franchi

B ETWEEN ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND PHILOSOPHY.
To see how the situation may be different we need to take a brief look at some concrete
production of Artificial Intelligence by performing a little thought experiment. We will
imagine a possible interaction with two AI artifacts: the first is CHESS, one of the first
computer programs capable of playing chess, and the second is SHRDLU, one of the most
successful programs able to converse in natural language. 26
CHESS (Simon, Newell)
Imagine having a meeting with CHESS and its designer(s).
You are sitting in a room, in front of computer console,
and the researchers explain to you that they have written a
program that can carry on a real, meaningful game of
chess.
That is, the program can exchange chess moves with you,
follow the rules of chess, and understand what it’s doing.
The interaction with the program is quite simple: you type
your move on the keyboard and the computer answer
with a move of its own.
They invite you to test the truthfulness of their assertions
by playing a game with the computer. You accept, pick
up the black pieces, and the following exchange ensues:
Your commands are shown in this type,
the computer’s replies in this type,
and the researchers’ in this one.
1. P-Q4 N-KB3
2. N-QB3
White prepares to occupy the center with P-K4, but
the text move has the disadvantage of blocking the
Queen’s Bishop pawn, which when advanced to
Queen Bishop Four, controls Queen Five with a
pawn.
2. ... P-Q4
3 Q-Q3
This move does prepare P-K4; However, (1) minor
pieces should generally be developed before the
Queen, (2) the Queen is now subject to early attack
by Black’s minor pieces, and (3) the text move decreases
the mobility of the King’s bishop.
3. ... P-QN3
4. P-K4 B-N2
5. P X P
Best I think. if, for example, (a) 5. P-K5, N-K5 gives
Black strong control of Queen Four and King Five
with a devastating P-QB4 to follow shortly; while
(b) 5. P-B3 leaves White no good squares on which
to develop his King side pieces
.......................
SHRDLU (Winograd)
Imagine having a meeting with SHRDLU and its designer(s).
You are sitting in a room, in front of computer console,
and the researcher(s) explain to you that they have written
a program that can carry on a conversation in English
about a restricted “block-world.”
That is, the program can talk with you, follow the rules of
English, and know what it’s talking about. The interaction
with the program is quite simple: you type your sentence
on the keyboard and the computer answer with a sentence
of its own.
They invite you to test the truthfulness of their assertions
by chatting with the computer. You accept, and the following
exchange ensues:
Your commands are shown in this type,
the computer’s replies in this type,
and the researchers’ in this one.
1. Pick up a big red block
OK
The systems answers “OK” when it carries out a
command. In order to pick up the red block, it had
to clear it off by finding a space for the green one
and moving the green none away.
2. Grasp the pyramid.
I don’t understand which pyramid you
mean
There are three pyramids in the scene, so the program
does nothing.
3. Find a block which is taller than the one you are
holding and put it into the box.
The system has to figure out what is meant by
“one” and “it,” as well as using deduction to decide
which block is holding.
By “it” I assume you mean the block
which is taller than the one I am
holding.
Printed out to keep us informed.
OK
26. The interactions (and the comments provided by the authors) are taken, respectively, from Allen Newell,
J.C, Shaw, and Herbert Simon, “Chess Playing Programs and the Problem of Complexity,” Edward
Feigenbaum and Julian Feldman, (eds.), Computers and Thought (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963) 66-
67, and Terry Winograd, “A Procedural Model of Language Understanding,” Roger Schank and Kenneth
Colby, eds., Computer Models of Thought and Language (San Francisco: Freeman, 1973) 152-
186.
147