[William Tell]

noiseman said: "Basing the measure of intelligence on the ability to fool people is fundamentally flawed."

A computer's able to play chess was once thought to be a challenge which requires artificial intelligence to solve.

As chess programs became more powerful, rivaling Master level and even up to Grandmaster level, the enthusiasm of the artificial intelligence community seems to have waned.

I decided that the reason for the declining interest is that true "artificial intelligence", if there ever is such a thing, has an attribute that hasn't been discussed, as far as I know.

That attribute is that the scientific community must be UNABLE to explain how the artificial intelligence arrives at its conclusions. If you understand, then you are less impressed.

Soon we will probably get to the point where very old software is used to accomplish useful ends and yet nobody understands how it works. That might well satisfy my definition.

[morphing libertarian]

There is a recent book out, the name of which I cannot remember. Author spoke on CSPAN 2 BookTV about a month ago.

The theme is that when robots can design robots, they will advance beyond human intelligence and we will be in trouble as a species. Sometime later this millennium, IIRC. FYI

[jiggyboy]

Some people just say with a smirk that Artificial Intelligence is “whatever computers can’t do yet”.