Self-study
Graham: Support The defeat of the world's chess champion by a computer shows that Support any type of human intellectual activity governed by fixed principles can be mastered by machines and thus that Conclusion a truly intelligent machine will inevitably be devised.
█████████ ███ ███ ███ ███████████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ ████████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ █ █████ ████████ █████ █ █████████
Speaker 1 Summary
Graham claims that it’s inevitable that humans will invent a truly intelligent machine. How do we know? Because the world chess champion was recently beaten by a computer. According to Graham, this means that computers can master any kind of principle-based intellectual activity (which Graham assumes means that machine intelligence is coming).
Speaker 2 Summary
Adelaide comes to the implied conclusion that the chess example doesn’t actually mean that AI is imminent. This is because the computer’s chess skill was just an extension of its programmers, who were able to accurately program the rules of chess. Thus, it doesn’t follow that computers can necessarily master all other sorts of activities.
Objective
We’re looking for a disagreement. Graham and Adelaide disagree on whether this chess victory shows the computer’s ability to learn intellectual activities.
25.
The statements above provide the ████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ████████ ████████ █████ ███████
a
chess is the ████ ███████ ██ █ █████ ████████████ ████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██████████
Neither speaker makes this claim. Graham uses chess as one example of a human intellectual activity that is governed by fixed principles, but neither speaker says whether it’s the best example.
b
chess is a ███████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████████████ ██████████ ██ █████ █████ ██████ ██████████████████ ██████
Neither speaker claims this. Neither Graham nor Adelaide discusses what kinds of intellectual activities are most characteristic or typical for humans to engage in.
c
a computer's defeat ██ █ █████ █████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████
Graham agrees with this but Adelaide disagrees, so this is the point of disagreement. Graham infers that computers can master certain human activities, meaning he thinks that this computer mastered chess. Adelaide claims that it’s the programmers’ achievement, not the computer’s.
d
intelligence can be ████████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██████████
Graham may agree with this, but Adelaide never offers an opinion. Adelaide doesn’t weigh in on the issue of machine intelligence at all, instead focusing on whether the computer or the programmers should get credit for this chess victory.
e
tools can be ████████ ██ ███ ██ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██████████
Neither speaker makes this claim. Adelaide’s argument implies that the computer was used as a chess-playing tool by its programmers, but she never generalizes that model to all principle-based activities. Graham doesn’t discuss tools at all.