(a) Formulate this problem as a constraint-satisfaction problem, to be solved by search through the space of partial exam assignments. Describe the components of the problem, namely:
(c) Describe two different nontrivial admissible heuristic functions for this problem, and explain why they are admissible.
(d) Describe two variable-ordering heuristics that could be applied to select an order in which to instantiate the variables for this problem. This heuristic should be domain-specific, so if you name a "generic" heuristic (such as "minimum width ordering"), give an example of each heuristic for the exam-scheduling domain.
(e) Describe two value-ordering heuristics that could be applied to
select the order in which to try the possible instantiations of a particular
variable for this problem. Again, if you name a generic heuristic, give
an example of each heuristic for this domain.
Eval(Board) = 3X2 + X - (3O2 + O1)(a) Show the game tree for Tic-Tac-Toe starting from an empty board down to depth 2 (i.e., one X and one O on the board), taking symmetry into account (i.e., not repeating any positions that are rotations of another position). You should have 3 positions at level 1 and 12 at level 2.
(b) Mark on your tree the evaluations of all the positions at level 2.
(c) Mark on your tree the backed-up values for the positions at levels 1 and 0, using the minimax algorithm, nad use them to choose the best starting move.
(d) CIrcle the nodes at level 2 that would not be evaluated if
alpha-beta pruning were applied, assuming the nodes are generated in
the optimal order for alpha-beta pruning.
John Searle's Chinese Room argument essentially boils down to this: a symbol processing system is insufficient to represent "true" intelligence. He uses a "reductio ad absurdum" argument to analogize an AI system to a room containing a non-Chinese-speaking person who is answering questions in Chinese by manipulating symbol tables with no understanding of the content of these tables. (Effectively, the person in the room is running the program, by acting as the CPU, with pieces of paper as the "memory" of the CPU.) Searle claims that it is absurd to believe that the peson -- or the whole system -- "understands" Chinese.
1. Do you agree, disagree, or partially agree with Searle's assertion?
2. If you agree, how would you describe the nature of the difference between the symbol processing system and the brain's mental processes? That is it, what is it about human mental processing that makes it inherently different from physical symbol processing in a computer? If you disagree, how do you think Searle would characterize this essential difference?
3. In general, people are not willing to accept simulations of processes
as equivalent to those processes. For example, I could write a simulation
of a car's engine, but you wouldn't say that that simulation actually is
a car's engine. Supporters of AI seem to be claiming that a simulation
of intelligence is intelligent. Do you agree with this position?
Why or why not? In particular, why is a simulation of intelligence like
(or unlike) a simulation of a car's engine?