If chess is the measure of the mind, what's an artificially intelligent machine have to do to be considered a human equal? After all, in 1997 machine defeated former grandmaster Garry Kasparov using brute computation, and AI has since conquered draughts, Othello, backgammon and Scrabble according to the Financial Times article, "Machines that can outwit the smartest brains." Though the mind doesn't, obviously and thankfully, use strict logic, coding rules-based actions has become sufficiently advanced that the best human players of tactical board and card games have fallen prey to cleverly coded synthetic intelligence. Only the human play at the ancient game of Go remains unconquered.
AI is clearly making progress.
Ever since HAL was sonorously creeping out everyone in the theater, we've had this tendency to move the goalposts to avoid the idea that an artificial intelligence might someday match our wetware. "It is," the main organic character in the FT piece says, "whatever computers can't do yet."
If that's the case, then I wonder if coding deception might be the last synthetic frontier.