XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net   
      
   In article <2qp8e95h4nki1ibmjf84n023in4le9d3mb@4ax.com>,   
   JRStern@foobar.invalid says...   
   >   
   > On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 16:26:53 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   > >>>You can't even come up with an meaningful, objective definition   
   > >>>of "one thing." And you still haven't addressed Greg's point,   
   > >>>that once you do, when computers can do that, the definition   
   > >>>will be changed again, so that computers cannot, by (meta)   
   > >>>definition _ever_ be "intelligent," because the people doing the   
   > >>>defining will simply not stand for it.   
   > >>   
   > >> What you said.   
   > >>   
   > >> But let me rant some along these (familiar) lines.   
   > >>   
   > >> One of the first uses of the term AI was that it was going to   
   > >> take "intelligence" for a computer to juggle multiple threads.   
   > >> Now that is entirely a commonplace, done with a few lines of   
   > >> code.   
   > >>   
   > >> Chess is still on the bubble here, originally it was said to   
   > >> require so much creativity and insight it was unthinkable that a   
   > >> machine could ever do it. Of course such statements showed   
   > >> gross ignorance of mathematics and game theory, or at least a   
   > >> pessimistic view of how fast computers could ever get.   
   > >   
   > >Indeed. Nobody worth taking seriously ever said it was impossible.   
   >   
   > Maybe nobody worth taking seriously ever quite said it was impossible,   
   > but many people even today of whatever worth continue to say that at   
   > it is at least impossible for digital electronic computers.   
   >   
   > I'm pretty sure it is possible, and I'm very sure nobody has much of a   
   > valid argument why it might NOT be possible, but I suppose, strictly   
   > speaking, it's not proven until we have robots running about and   
   > sounding pretty much indistinguishable from humans.   
      
   Anyone today who claims that computers cannot play chess is just plain   
   ignorant.  Kasparov and Deep Blue is well known.  What is less well   
   known is Kasparov and Deep Junior, which in 2003 beat him 3 out of 6   
   running on a high end PC and can be purchased by anybody for $60.00.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)