> No they don't. They managed to get impressive results Given that these papers have actually been published, the papers they produce are at least as coherent

> No they don't. They managed to get impressive results Given that these papers have actually been published, the papers they produce are at least as coherent as the state of the art in the field. > but it's still far from coherent because the algorithms still lack the ability to think Nobody knows what "thinking" is, as a functional process. For all you know, human thinking may itself just be the same sort of pattern matching as used in machine learning, just with a few more parameters. In which case these algorithms actually are thinking, just with more limited intelligence than us.