I enjoyed the poem too, 
but if English was written phonetically 
the computer would have it perfectly correct.
The flaw is in the language not the computer.
I suspect modern spellcheckers would also detect a few grammatical errors. 
that would suggest some words should be replaced by homophones.
The idea that computer chess programs can't or don't take account 
of positional considerations is just wrong, or way out of date.

--
GPJ

I loved the poem in this piece. AI is a pipe dream, as Penrose wrote in "The Emperor's New Mind".
> 
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/computational-intelligence-and-darwin... -Working in some proximity to the field, only stating that we can't do it is a pipe dream. -Kasparov stormed out of a chess match when Deep Blue did an amazingly "human" thing: It judged that its position was absolutely impervious, and instead of playing ahead assuming Kasparov saw the draw, wasted a move by just moving its king. The result: Kasparov was screaming that there was no way he was playing against a machine. The limits in the program from the blogger, are the limits built into the machine by its author. [EDIT] If Kasparov couldn't tell he was playing a machine at that point, what does it tell you about the machine? [EDIT]-Or note the post I just posted that shows a long-term research project where a machine (starting as a blank slate and only some high-level "needs") learns how to read human emotion and carry on "conversations" on an emotional level. -The key here is that the author here assumes that Artificial Intelligence programming follows even the same rules as what's done for a game: This is NOT the case. Chess starts out simply, gets chaotic in the middle, but the endgame is simpler than the beginning. (In most cases.) In the beginning and the end there just isn't as many combinations to think about. (Only 22 valid moves in the beginning, -Even in game AI--there's some imperative programming. AI programming is exactly the opposite: it's experiential in nature. The machine literally learns. You teach it its boundaries--you don't program them in place. True AI programming is alien to anyone who's written any other kind of code; that's why I won't write it off as garbage as you do.-[EDIT] As for the poem, a version of it gets passed around in college all the time. As you are aware of the Turing test, just this year AI researchers got close enough that they're starting to prepare a harder Turing test. The post about emotional intelligence above is one step towards human-use of language. The thinking of the blogger is simply not up to the current state of the field, and he's being romantic.[EDIT]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

This blog about Fibonacci, fractals, etc., shows how simple repetative formalas fit what has developed in nature and cosmology, either naturally or by God. Goerge should also enjoy.- http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/09/20/fibonacci_life.thtml