Please appreciate this kind of activity and give your view. By this way we can share our knowledge and work together even we did not meet ever.

Thanks and regards to all of you

Dear Qaim,

I am also a chess player (not a good one), and we have the same discussion there.

There are many championships between humans and computers, and even some only with computers (differents softwares).

The former world champion, Anatoly Karpov use to say that computer never will be better chessplayers than humans, because humans have tha capability to be creativity, and computers haven't it.

I quite agree with Karpov. There are some mixed championships where computers have won, but there are anothers where the human didn't lose to any computer. Computers are so mathematical, and they are good as long as their mathematical model is good. On the other hand, humans has no limity in their creativity.

I believe that computers never wil be able to paint a master-piece, or write a song, poem, book, etc. Than can be faster with the math, but they are made for this purpose.

They are tools. Excellent tools, but they are still tools.

Obviously, it depends on your view on these two things, though people tend to think of one particular organ, the human brain, to represent a human as a whole in this kind of discussion. It also depends on the measurement approach used since "better" implies that there is some type of scale, or, frame of reference in general to plot the behavioral performances.

Well, despite the complicated nature of this topic, I personally think there is one simple sentence/question to distinguish a computer and a human: Do computers have minds? Apparently, we human do.

It's the mind that drives the brain makes us human, not just some mechanical body parts assembled and attached to a ball filled with a bunch of connected wires.

Henrique's "tool" view is interesting. That makes me think of some really "toolish" tools. For example, unless you have got some superpowers, your fists aren't harder than hammers. Then the same question becomes quite amusing: Which one is better? Human or Hammer?

Dear Qaim,

I work in the field of medicine. One of the main developments there that would be related to the 'intelligence' of computers would be the more widescale introduction of computer aided diagnosis and detection (CADx and CADe) and the introduction of clinical decision support. A development that clearly springs to mind is the IBM Watson computer which they also trained in medicine. One of the issues that is of big debate in medicine is of course the liability. Currently many lawsuits are pressed against health professionals by patients because of misdiagnosis or incorrect treatment. However, when a computer 'makes' the decisions who is responsible (and liable) for that decision? The company providing the machine, the hospital, the doctor, the patient?

Regards,

Peter

By the way, if you would really want to try and develop an open source article, open a wiki and have everyone contribute to the article on that wiki (or share a google doc). In that way people could really contribute to the paper instead of just placing random posts that are difficult to combine and/or integrate.

Most of the contributors argue as if computers came from some non-human sources. Actually, considering the chess example, the real question is whether humans are better at playing chess or at programming chess algorithms. If one would give the development of computers some autonomy (Pavel's notion 'without human influence') they certainly could paint pictures that are masterpieces by their own standards and but would nothing convey to most humans (not too dissimilar to the situation with many modern human artists).

The computer is a technology designed and developed by humans. It is supposed to do tasks beyond the capacity of a human being. Yet, it lacks emotion, intuition, consciousness, and other human qualities despite attempts to produces these artificially.

Dear all friends,

I believe in one phrase that THE CREATOR MUST BE BETTER THAN CREATURE. It is well known that the human mind is still better that the fastest personal computer we have now but as far as it concern with super computer... yes these species are far bette than the human mind. Why??? just because of the multi-processing technique. All supercomputers are using many more processors that are working together to find any solution. But if you compare with any single CPU... our mind is still better.

IF ANYONE HAVE ANY OBJECTION KINDLY PRODUCE SOME FACTS IN FAVOUR OF YOUR VIEW.

regards

We collected information only from those who obtained their first degree at a pedagogy-oriented course from 2007 to 2010 (N=731).

It has been justified statistically that there are more respondents who preferred oral examinations and liked printed materials (r= 0.977). There is also a strong correlation between those respondents who preferred electronic materials and those who liked electronic test papers (r= 0.964). Therefore, we can state that the positive attitude of the respondents could be clearly attributed to the experiences gained during the lectures and seminars, as we could prove the secondary effect of age. (Ágnes N. Tóth 2014; Milestones in the Process of Becoming a Teacher; EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. I, Issue 11 / February 2014. pp.4471-4494.)

Qaim, don't you have the impression that a comparison relation 'better' comes close to being non-sensical if one doesn't specify 'better at what' ? For instance, any stone is better than me, since it is harder!

I just have submitted a paper related to this subject, one of the experiments done in that paper is the Turing test, this was not designed as proposed by Alan Turing, it rather designed to test the ability of machines to read CAPTCHAs compared to human abilities, 16 different students responded to CAPTCHAs sent by the interrogator in addition to an OCR machine responded as well to each sent CAPTCHAs. each time the interrogator could not differentiate between a human's and a machine's answer.

the OCR machine accuracy in reading CAPTCHAs was higher than the human ability-- this is scary, I know, that why I proposed a new generation of CAPTCHAs.

this means that the employed machine was more intelligent than the humans in this particular task.

the problem here is how to define intelligence. if the problem in the domain of discourse needs large calculations and large amount of data to be solved, machine is more intelligent than humans in solving that particular task, and they are useless in solving other problems even if those were very related to the original problem.

if the problem needs commonsense and taking decisions in absence/ lack of information, humans become more intelligent.

it is not a matter of who is intelligent more a human or a machine, it is all about getting the job done. from a business owner point of view, all this guy wants is to get the job done, increasing utility/profit and decreasing cost as possible as could. whoever satisfies this criterion is the most intelligent. as intelligent action is the one that increases utility and decreases cost.

in this context we find machines are more intelligent than human in some tasks such as: solving cross-words puzzle, 8-queen puzzle, chess, etc.

in the other hand, we find humans are more intelligent than machines in some other tasks such as: face detection/recognition, medicine prescription, surgery, driving a car, etc.

if we want to draw curves for machine intelligence and human intelligence, x axle represent the problem and Y axle represent the IQ, the curve of the human intelligence will be a flat and contentious, while the curve of the machines will be discrete dots above or lower the curve of the humans intelligence, depending on the problem along the X axle.

The goal of AI was never to create a human, on the contrary it was found to help humans not to cancel them.

sorry for writing that much :)

The curves of human vs machine intelligence. as I think

@Peter, thanks for your guidance regarding open source article. I will try to make an account then inform all of you regarding that.

@Santosh you are very right but Computer is just a slave not intelligent slave. Those guys who are favoring computer, I have a question for them... can we calculate the IQ of a computer? can a computer itself make an antiviral code against a newly developed viral program? can a computer even take a step beyond the algorithm? No not at all! It is just like other machine bounded by the limitation created by human.

Humans do have a super brain than computers, for some functions the computers the creation of man' can be better but not for all. They both stuck when over worked.

A simple comparison is not possible, many things have to be compared. A nice topic for discussion. See computers can not take decisions if not programed, humans can under any situation. Nice to read all the answers.

Thanks ma'am for your such a nice answer but my vote is with my team:Human Brain.

@Peter,

as you mention in your view that who will be the responsible for any miss-happening while using the computer in medical science. That was the main reason behind the flop show of MYCIN otherwise it was better than any physician even before 40 years. Now who is responsible for other miss-happening where we are using machine. Believe me computer never commit mistake and the senior superviser must approve the prescription before apply.