There is a common perception that, although computers may be able to perform calculations faster than us, they will never be able to "think" or be "truly creative". Even among those who reject this perception, there is a commonly held belief that it will take "hundreds" or "thousands" of years for computers to match the brain's abilities. Supporters of this view often cite the failed AI projects of the 1970s and 1980s — concluding that, like nuclear fusion, AI is the technology of the future and always will be.
However, unlike nuclear fusion, AI technologies have already become a part of our daily lives. Thirty years ago, if you wanted to read some papers written in another language, your only real options were to find a friend who knew it, or hire a translator. Nowadays, Google Translate, an AI technology, provides us with instant, free, automatic translation of any web page or document, between more than two thousand language pairs. The technology is, of course, not perfect, but citing imperfections in a wonder of the modern age as a reason why "computers can't really think" brings to mind those who said that "this 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication".
By the way, know what? I said the whole "risk to being reduced to pets" was an idle question, but if you want me to play at this game, I will...
Don't want to hijack this thread in a Randian apologia direction, especially since I do find her elitism more than a bit off-putting (though I do...
>If we can't define intelligence then the project of attempting to create it will always be incoheren
No, we can't define exactly...
Have you actually read anything Rand ever wrote? Or did you get that idea purely from other people who also haven't read anything Rand ever wrote...