Yeah, I don't understand how Douglas Hofstadter came from [0] > There may be programs which can beat anyone at chess, but they will not be exclusively chess pl

Yeah, I don't understand how Douglas Hofstadter came from [0] > There may be programs which can beat anyone at chess, but they will not be exclusively chess players. They will be programs of general intelligence, and they will be just as temperamental as people. "Do you want to play chess?" "No, I'm bored with chess. Let's talk about poetry." That may be the kind of dialogue you could have with a program that could beat everyone. That is because real intelligence inevitably depends on a total overview capacity-that is, a programmed ability to 'jump out of the system", so to speak-at least roughly to the extent that we have that ability. Once that is present, you can't contain the program; it's gone beyond that certain critical point, and you just have to face the facts of what you've wrought. to [1] > Although my prediction about chess-playing programs put forth there turned out to be embarrassingly wrong (as the world saw with Deep Blue versus Kasparov in 1997), those few pages nonetheless express a set of philosophical beliefs to which I am still committed in the strongest sense. and now to > Why would anyone want to devote thousands of hours to learning a foreign language if, by contrast, they could simply talk into their cellphone and it would instantly spit out “the same message” in any language of their choice, in their own voice, and with a perfect accent to boot? not to mention his other articles recently. It's as if he forgot that there are still human beings learning, playing, and competing in chess or go, dedicating thousands of hours of their lifetime to it. [0] both copied from GEB