> It could just play unbelievably bad and appear like a beginner. That wouldn't prove intelligent.
Sure, which is why it's not a very good metric. The correct metric for looking at whether computational game intelligence has exceeded human capacity is that computers can consistently beat humans.
To be clear, I'm not convinced that we'll ever make a generalized intelligence which can pass the Turing Test. My point was merely that the fact that humans create the system is not a good argument for why it's impossible: in many domains, we can already create computer systems which vastly outperform ourselves.
Sure, which is why it's not a very good metric. The correct metric for looking at whether computational game intelligence has exceeded human capacity is that computers can consistently beat humans.
To be clear, I'm not convinced that we'll ever make a generalized intelligence which can pass the Turing Test. My point was merely that the fact that humans create the system is not a good argument for why it's impossible: in many domains, we can already create computer systems which vastly outperform ourselves.