@nbro I think Oliver's answer is good and useful. If someone is new to programming and software development, or doesn't have a CS degree, or has been getting information from poorly informed sourced, they might not know basics.

(Interesting though that even Oliver didn't upvote the question! ;)

@DukeZhou As Neil had written, the question is really too broad, apart from being off-topic, in my opinion

It's also sad that your other question has generated the usual answers with opinions, rather than answers with references to research work.

John references Turing's writings on the subject, and also Lovelace.

(It's his answer I will probably end up accepting, although I'm holding off to see what else pops up.)

@DukeZhou I didn't read it yet. I will read it later

@DukeZhou John's answer is definitely the best answer so far, but I can't upvote it, because I don't agree with Turing. I agree with Ada Lovelace.

> The Analytical Engine has no pretensions to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform.

Machines can only do what we originally program them to do, either directly or indirectly (or with different levels of detailed commands).

If I say to a machine, "Optimize! I don't care about the solution (numbers), just do what I said machine!", it will optimize. I command the machine to optimize, with respect to a metric that I (a human) chose.

@nbro you should think about answering, since don't think your position has been strongly argued.

(I have been known to upvote strongly reasoned answers I may personally disagree with, but, in this case, I think there is some basis for your position.)

I may be out in the weeds here, but it occurs to me that the entire question is framed within our human conception of intelligence (call it utility or fitness in an environment) which we assume to be universal. Maybe there are other forms of intelligence or optimality we have not or cannot conceive of. Regardless, we're evaluating AI in a human frame of reference re: intelligence (aka "man is the measure of all things."

@DukeZhou I've written two comments under John's answer to describe my current view. If I find some research work that goes in the direction of my point of view, I will provide a formal answer

Btw, I am thinking of preparing a list of new questions to ask on the site. I will also provide answers to them. I think these questions will enrich the website, given the theoretical nature of the topic, which has not been explored enough.

@nbro that's a great idea.

I think we definitely could use more of that--questioning not just to get an answer to a problem, but to address important subjects in a rigorous manner.

Yes, I think, if we want to become more reliable, in general, we need more rigor