No offense to OP or Mr. Togelius but this argument is terrible in almost every way imaginable and completely unconvincing at that. It makes its case entirely by subtly introducing straw men and double standards.<p>Leaving aside that its primary point is made by a redefinition of “intelligence” (itself being nebulous without providing two definitions), it completely ignores the fact that computers would be completely unable to do any of these things had smart people not told them how to. You may say the same of people as well, but people can learn things independent of knowledge. Even something as simple as space and time is understood a priori by people but most computers are oblivious to what these things actually mean.<p>The arguments about memory are terrible because one might as well say a library is smarter than a person if all that matters is the accuracy of recall and the amount of data stored. The computer itself does not know these things in the same way that we do, if you ask it to find them for you it will search them the same way you might but more quickly. Knowledge is contextual and intuitive, and computers currently are not great at context or intuition.<p>And that’s just knowledge! It’s so easy to demonstrate that human knowledge is more complex than computer “knowledge” that it’s barely even worth discussing.<p>I personally think one of the strongest indicators of intelligence in people is their intuition and the ease at which they adapt to new things, i.e. how many things come easily to them. Nothing comes easily to a computer. Everything must be specified clearly and carefully to the computer by a person who is better at intuition than the computer is. The computer has no way of knowing whether something is “right” or “wrong” in the sense that those words intersect with both morality and logic. They might understand that something is “incorrect,” but that does not carry the negative connotations that “wrong” does for a human being. Computers have not “computed how to play the game perfectly,” they were told how to do so through increasing levels of abstraction. Computers have not “computed how to play the game perfectly” just as pencils have not learned how to make marks on paper. That a computer does what you tell it to and by definition can’t do what you don’t tell it to is evidence enough of its utility as a tool and not a person.<p>This is, of course, in the current context of AI. I have no doubt that some day we will create software with the sort of intuition and ability to contextualize information that people have. But until then, there’s not sense deluding ourselves that we’re already there. If that were the case, we might as well have stopped doing computer science research with the Bombe 70 years ago.