More difficult for me to comment as I am no chess grand master and am unfamiliar with their strategy... but your last paragraph seems to cover it. We just haven't programmed them well enough, which I imagine is because we don't understand the logic of the strategy well enough. The grand masters can use it, but can they spell it out effectively? It seems not. Like riding a bike, compared to knowing which neurons to fire to move which muscle groups at what time
The whole discussion of 'context free' seems irrelevant to any understanding of intelligence - brute number crunching may give a semblance of intelligence at times, but without effective and adaptive heuristics then it's only ever a semblance, imho...
Does Dreyfus supply an argument for the claim that programs can never become more precise and capable than a human?
The whole discussion of 'context free' seems irrelevant to any understanding of intelligence - brute number crunching may give a semblance of intelligence at times, but without effective and adaptive heuristics then it's only ever a semblance, imho...
Does Dreyfus supply an argument for the claim that programs can never become more precise and capable than a human?