Well, now, in classic NYC cocktail party tradition, I haven't actually® read either article yet. And I think that attempts to simulate anything as poorly understood as human intelligence are doomed. I just wouldn't want to accept the ravings of someone who cavalierly categorizes Stephen Hawking as a "popular-science oracle" without having read the ravings of the "popular-science oracle" himself. My local newsstand didn't have a copy of the relevant issue of Focus and the on-line edition doesn't give access to the cover story.
No, you're quite right, Faldage. My point was merely to say that I agreed with the on-line version's rationale for it being impossible to artificially reproduce human thought processes. Nothing more.
