True artificial intelligence is improbable.

Rather than nit-pick aspects of my opponent argument, I will try and address his argument as a whole.COUNTER-ARGUMENTThe ability to learn does not intelligence make.My opponent has (in my mind) sufficiently proven that machines are capable of learning. While I was perhaps a bit ambiguous about my definition of True AI in the opening I distinctly said: “That is not true intelligence, which allows new ideas to evolve from previously known information.”My opponent has failed to address this point. Also, while I am happy to watch YouTube videos, posting one that is over an hour long is a bit excessive. Sources should be used to reinforce points, not make them.ARGUMENTSThe Dartmouth Principle can be true without ‘True AI’ being achieved.The Dartmouth Principle is as follows: "Every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it.”I, of course agree with this. My opponent is correct when he says:“Since we know that the process of acquiring knowledge and skills in humans is ultimately based on a set of rules and programming there's no reason to think that when programming becomes sophisticated enough that we would be unable to recreate that same process in artificial intelligence.”HOWEVER, there is a very important distinction to make: Planking.The latest internet craze: photos of people lying flat in various and precarious places for laughs. What purpose does it serve? Well it might amuse the masses to some extent, but it is fairly useless in the grand scale of things.The distinction is some individual or group thought up planking. What pre-programmed set of rules did they use to logically come to the conclusion it was fun? Computers can ONLY follow a pre-programmed set of rules, no matter how all-encompassing those rules might be, they are still locked into that cycle. That is the very nature of computers. Computers don’t need learning receptors; they need imagination, creativity and originality. How does one even begin to code original thought?The cost of our true intelligence comes is high. We are bored, narrow-minded, selfish and illogical creatures. REBUTTALS “The Chinese Room is interestingly parallel to those subconscious things people do that are simply embedded in our DNA. Think about "hunches" we have about people or our reflexes. We never had to learn how to do these things…"Not only are you are utterly wrong, but your entire counter argument is a red herring. Your hunches and your reflexes are based on things you learn during your life and have nothing to do with your DNA. Your DNA doesn’t change from your conception to your death. Your hunches and reflexes do.Let me explain the Chinese Room argument:The man in the room is a metaphor for a computer.The instructions he is receiving are a metaphor for the programming a computer ‘understands’.The man may appear to understand Chinese (as a computer may appear to be intelligent) but in fact has no idea what he is doing.A computer may know appear to know, understand and be capable of interacting with a myriad of things, but it is merely an illusion created by clever programmers.CONCLUSIONWe must come back to the resolution: True AI (as I defined it in R1) is improbable.I have explained my argument; In order to be considered truly intelligent (like a human) a computer must be able to program itself. This opposes the very nature of a computer! Computer programming has become more complex and sophisticated in the last decades, but that is only because of the evolution of the way we interact with binary. This indicates that while computers may grow faster and faster into infinity, the nature of them is unlikely to change.Resolution affirmed.