> By your definition, computers should be terrible at Air Traffic Control, Driving Cars, Logistics Planning, and even playing Chess. All of these are problems

> By your definition, computers should be terrible at Air Traffic Control, Driving Cars, Logistics Planning, and even playing Chess. All of these are problems with complete information. Chess is a solved game, however you can't analyze the whole problem quickly enough to cover it all. Driving a car, a computer can have access to all relevant data--far more than a human. Sure, new data can be introduced, but the computer can pick it up and handle it as quickly as a human. Poker is a better example of a problem with incomplete information--and computers do NOT excel at it. They do play excellent heads-up limit, which is more-or-less a solved game. They play much-less-excellent heads up no-limit, and they certainly don't approach new situations in a novel manner. The same goes for full table games. I would expect computers to be very good at all the tasks you mentioned, and mediocre (but trainable) at those like poker. I expect that this, too, will change in the future, when we manage to invent better ways to handle incomplete information, especially if there's a rapid feedback loop.