BB+ on the matter

[bob]

There are lots of things you do with a computer that are not "science". For instance, building killer lines for the openings is computer chess, but it is not computer science.

Using an AI to build killer lines is using applied computer science. Any time you switch on the chess AI, you are utilizing computer science for chess.

*IF* you use AI. If you use natural intelligence (i.e. a human brain) to find good lines, your not doing computer science. You are just using a computer to study chess opening theory. Still, you are doing computer chess.

Miguel

Mangled term. "computer chess" has _always_ been about the endeavour to make a computer play the game of chess better than any human. It is not about using the computer program. That is chess. You just chose an electronic helper rather than a human helper. But developing the chess program is AI/computer science. Using it can be anything, but is certainly at least chess. Using a chess program is _not_ "computer chess" however.

[Michael Sherwin]

EDIT: No sorry, I read too fast, that is not what I mean. That is a fraction of CC that is outside of CS.

Code: Select all

/======================\
|   Chess              |
|                      | 
|  /-------------------\                      
|  |                   |                       
|  |            /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
|  |            |      |                    |
|  |   CC       |      |      CS            |
|  |            |      |                    |
|  \------------\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/
|                      |
\======================/ 

Miguel

You must admit this is incorrect. The proof is given by removing computer science from your diagram, which would erroneously leave CC as a set. Do the same in my diagram and CC correctly disappears. CC is created by the intersection of the two sets, chess and computer science.

That is the point I am arguing. There are lots of things you do with a computer that are not "science". For instance, building killer lines for the openings is computer chess, but it is not computer science.

Digressing a bit, you may use a computer to do science, but in areas that are not in computer science, it may be computer chemistry, computer biology or something else. The contribution is in chemistry or biology etc.

Miguel

I think what you are looking for is three circles, C, CC, CS

C intersects CC but does not intersect CS

CC intersects both C and CS

C and CS do not intersect because when I am playing chess against a human I never use CS in any fashion to arrive at a move.
Even when I play against a machine I do not really consider CS in the decision (father might though, but what he does is 'not chess'). However, the machine uses CS to make its moves or it merely uses a human type book which is C, but not really CS. So, in my opinion C only interacts with CS indirectly through CC.

It is really even more complicated!

If you think about it, computer science is not concerned with any one type of application. And computer chess only uses the tools that computer science has produced, with out caring about the science. Between computer chess and computer science is game theory and A.I. neither of which even require computer science at all. It just so happens that it is easier to automate chess on a tool created by computer science than it is to use paper and pencil. To program the computer for a task is merely to understand what has already been created for the programmer to use which maybe should be called application theory mixed with programming theory.

I don't know where you get that kind of opinion, but go pick up _any_ AI book and check to see which field it claims to be a part of. It is _not_ engineering. it is _not_ mathematical science. It is computer science. As far as "computer chess not caring about the science" that is only true for the commercial programmers. It is not true in general.

I've been teaching computer science for 40 years now. And I have taught AI courses many times. _In_ the computer science department. Do a little homework with google to see where you find AI courses offered (which department) rather than spouting such incredible disinformation.

Computers certainly make the investigation and application of AI practical. However, AI is a science all unto itself and does not strictly require a computer in order to formulate an algorithm by which it might be achieved. Then all is needed is a software engineer to translate the algorithm into a program. Where is the computer science in this.

It is time to get off this silly incorrect path: Wiki has a good definition:

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence of machines and the branch of computer science that aims to create it.

Pretty well sums it up. Do you have any idea what a "software engineer: does? Hint: He doesn't do "artificial intelligence" research.

Philosophers have been studying intelligence for thousands of years and proposing models (algorithms, or AI) of how intelligence works. So, the science of AI (even though it was not called AI) has been around far longer than computers have been around. It just so happens that the two go so well together that academia cannot see them as separate.

Hint, I did not say that a software engineer is doing AI research. I said that the software engineer is all that is needed to convert an AI algorithm into a computer program.

We are not in academia here--we are allowed to think for ourselves. You cannot use, "because academia says so" as a proof. If you cannot support your position with the valid use of logic then you should stop talking down to me and go figure out how you can support your point of view. If you cannot do that then you are not going to win this argument.