I think "artificial intelligence" is a total misnomer for we're talking about here.

There is a lot more involved than just language. It seems possible to solve language and still not create "strong AI." See: Watson kicking ass at Jeopardy. That is pretty sophisticated language comprehension; it even got clues that involved puns and wordplay.

From that it would seem totally possible to adapt this sort of intelligence to taking an IQ test. Just provide the right corpus to search and give the algorithms time to learn and be tuned. What if Watson tests out at a 150 IQ? Is he "intelligent"? After all it is an "intelligence quotient."

I think most people would say no, the issue is the Turing Test. That involves language, but I think the real point is an artificial personality: a computer that can hold a conversation and evince a discernible will and opinion. It seems to me that to do that, the machine must have emotions. I'm no expert in the field, but from my layman's position I don't see nearly as many stories about studying and replicating emotions as I do about human language.

Which is funny because any dog owner knows that dogs, despite having almost no formal language, are clearly willful, independent, emotional living beings. Can we even simulate a dog's emotional state with a computer? How about a bug's emotional state? I haven't heard much about that. But there is a ton of heat around language.

I think statistical models are an 80% solution. They get a long way down the path very quickly, but then they hit a wall and don't advance much further. Search, translation, probably also autonomous vehicles. They get to a point with statistical approaches and then they stop advancing.

The rapid success at first may be leading to a dead end.

Having said that, there's a lot of value in these technologies as assistance to human intelligence, but I'm skeptical they're ever going to lead to full-on autonomous intelligence.

But when does your average human hit a wall? Pretty quickly, I'd say. Mostly due to laziness and parenting and getting old.

I think that you are also getting at the _sentience_. I think this is what most people refer to when speaking about true AI. You know, having consciousness, desires, social skills, etc.

They're still computers in the traditional sense - they only do what someone told them to do.

I believe that you are then referring to sentience in addition to intelligence? Artificial sentient being is another thing entirely, I think. And tougher nut to crack :)

You are right, but to solve most problems, do machines really HAVE to think like humans?

(can't answer you directly, so I'm doing it here)

My point was, that, for example, language recognition doesn't need human intelligence, a statistical model is enough.

Or driving around a confined space only requires a particle filter, not human intelligence.

For most problems, you don't need AI.