> AlphaGo can't explain its moves to someone learning go, let alone cognitive tasks we take for granted like moving feet in a way that produces transportation.

> AlphaGo can't explain its moves to someone learning go, let alone cognitive tasks we take for granted like moving feet in a way that produces transportation. I'm pretty sure lee sedol cannot explain his own moves either. Yes, he can rationalize why that move is a good move, but he won't be able to explain the complete reasoning process that led to that move, because it relies on intuition. He cannot train a random person to play at the level of lee sedol. If you look at the human brain, every part learns to do just one thing. Alphago is like having just the part of the brain that plays go. Moving from there to something more general is a question of assembling the parts. Building a biped robot that walks and plays go is not a hard problem. The fundamental question is whether us humans are more than the sum of our parts. If you add task-specific AI bits together, will you at some point have something that becomes a person, or will it always be a collection of features?