In my opinion, information storage and retrieval isn't "intelligence" on its own. A system that implements it can't be said to be "smart". You could argue "know

In my opinion, information storage and retrieval isn't "intelligence" on its own. A system that implements it can't be said to be "smart". You could argue "knowledgeable", but that's not the same thing. Imagine that no web page on the internet says what happens when you mix red and blue paint, but there are results for classic color wheels, the results of mixing red+yellow, blue+white, blue+yellow, red+black, etc. Google will see that the page has a bunch of color-related words and words about mixing and paint, so you'll get a page result about that, if you ask it about the red+blue combo. Google's awesome at that kind of thing. But it stinks at the kind of reasoning that humans excel at: Opening that page, seeing "blue+yellow=green", seeing that green is between blue and yellow on a color wheel, and concluding that purple is between red and blue...then maybe continuing on and learning about additive vs subtractive color, and such. The human reader synthesized new information: red+blue=purple. Google organized existing information. > We still have a problem of accuracy. Why should I trust your perception and/or your explanation of the concept? That's not the point. The point is that a thinking person can process information in ways that we don't know how to make computers do (yet). We're still distilling the concept of human intelligence down to its core. I think Google and Watson are still at the level of using and presenting already-generated information effectively, but not generating and organizing their own new information, and not really "understanding" the things that they're retrieving.