Well, if you&#x27;re looking for understanding that&#x27;s good enough we can program it, then yeah, we don&#x27;t understand it. Also I think there was a misunderstanding on my part, in that we know quite a bit about human intelligence (that is, <i>g</i>), but not so much about intelligence-in-general. I&#x27;d rather clear up any miscommunication before throwing citations at you -- is your disagreement that <i>g</i> is not a well-established thing which maps very well to any tests of general intelligence you can conceive, or that <i>g</i> is a useless predictor, or that intelligence as measured by <i>g</i> is non-hereditary, or that <i>g</i> isn&#x27;t useful because it&#x27;s not a specific module of the brain we can simulate in code or hot-swap with that part of a donor&#x27;s brain?<p>People may still quibble, but I was under the impression the standard acceptable definition for intelligence (at least among AI folks) is Legg and Hutter&#x27;s informal &quot;the ability to efficiently achieve goals in a wide range of domains&quot;. (Which has been formalized with AIXI.) I&#x27;m also aware of several groups in the AI field who believe they can actually construct a mind, in fact that this is the safest way forward, and that hoping it just &quot;emerges&quot; is folly as old as the first neural net proponents...