>AI is whatever a computer can't do. Not sure if I agree with this. My computer can't do a lot of things and only a small set of that would really be considere

>AI is whatever a computer can't do. Not sure if I agree with this. My computer can't do a lot of things and only a small set of that would really be considered AI. The chess example isn't great. We have known chess is a deterministic game and a good enough algorithm on powerful enough hardware should beat or stalemate a grandmaster. The state space is big but finite. Its just a more complex form of checkers. This seemed to be more of a research issue of a known solvable problem that needs its state space shrunk to something we can calculate than a true AI breakthrough. I think AI like described in this article is a functioning, self-determined, self-learning, HAL-like system. This doesn't exist. It probably can with the right research and funding. Its not a problem of perception or arguing about what may or may not be AI. Although the AI-effect can be annoying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect I don't see the AI effect explaining why AI hasn't gotten farther. I think not understanding consciousness or the brain on a certain level is probably our biggest hurdle. Unlike chess, we don't know what we're trying to solve exactly.