As we see, the OP has > We have learned to use computer systems to reproduce at least some forms of human intuition. Hmm .... Let's examine that claim: To s

As we see, the OP has > We have learned to use computer systems to reproduce at least some forms of human intuition. Hmm .... Let's examine that claim: To set aside the game of Go, we start with an analogy: A human can walk 10 miles to town, and a car can help one drive the same 10 miles to town. But what a car does to get to town is very different from what a walking human does. Both approaches get to town, and the car is much better in various ways, but this does not mean that a car walked like a human. To be clear, specifically the car did not "reproduce" the way a human gets to town; e.g., the car did not have two legs. Both the human and the car got to town? Yes. The car "reproduced" how a human got to town on two legs? No. Similarly, a motor boat does not "reproduce" some forms of human swimming. This pattern of using science, engineering, etc. to get results comparable with those of unaided humans is very old with many great examples from especially the last 100 years. Further, on "intuition", there are many tasks that humans do with human intuition where science, engineering, and computing do comparably well, but that does not mean that the science, etc. has "reproduced" human intuition. Similarly, on the game of Go, AlphaGo got some game successes that humans get via human intuition, but that does not mean that AlphaGo "reproduced" human intuition, not in general and not even in the specific case of the game of Go. Early in IBM's mainframe computing, in the common publicity, there was a related claim that IBM's computers were "gigantic electronic human brains". Those computers were no more "human brains" than Henry Ford's Model T was gigantic mechanical human legs. A car is not human legs, and an early IBM computer was not a human brain. IMHO, there is an important point here: From the publicity about IBM's early computers to the claim in the OP I quoted above, there are claims that computing and computer science are reproducing some of how humans do things. But so far this claim is false, seriously false, not even close to the truth: Computers are no closer to reproducing human intelligence or "intuition" than Ford's Model T was to reproducing human legs. Instead, apparently AlphaGo is a some high dimensional data fitting to yield a classification system, that is, given a board position in Go, AlphaGo reports 0 for bad for the AlphaGo player and 1 good for the AlphaGo player. So, they have a classifier. But classifiers go way back, to Leo Breiman's random forests, classification and regression trees (CART), logistic regression, a huge range of statistical tests, e.g., in some cases of advanced radar target detection, and much more. Many such solutions have been very valuable, and maybe AlphaGo or its techniques will also be valuable, but none of this in any sense reproduces human intuition or really anything about humans -- not yet, not even close. Net, while it's a free country and people can disagree, which is one role of HN, IMHO, the quote I gave above from the OP is scientifically irresponsible. It just isn't really true. At best it is just hype.