<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Feb 13, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Sadly, this only confirms the deeply skeptical response that I gave earlier.<br>I strongly suspected that it was using some kind of statistical "proximity" algorithms to get the answers. And in that case, we are talking about zero advancement of AI.<br></span></blockquote><br></div><div>So, a "zero advancement of AI" results in a computer doing amazing things that nobody has seen before. If you are correct then a advancement of AI is not needed to build an AI. I conclude you are not correct.</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div></body></html>