The point from the study I would like to challenge is its view of intelligence as a broad spectrum. I think their spectrum is far too inclusive. The study admits that a calculator is not intelligent when compared with humans, but says it is simply a difference of scale, speed, degree of autonomy, and generality and includes it as artificial intelligence. I disagree, and think that while intelligence is a spectrum, not every object or program that performs an action is on it. In my view, a calculator is simply a tool with a specific function, and its inability to adapt or learn prevents it from being intelligent. I admit I may be playing into the AI effect that the study mentions by writing off a once great invention as a simple office tool when compared with other technology in todays world, but I feel as though a modern viewpoint is required to accurately decide what artificial intelligence is. All new discoveries will be revolutionary before they are explored fully, and if a greater understanding of the discovery renders it simple, then it may not have been as great as it was thought to be. New information changing previously held viewpoints is not a negative thing.
	My view of intelligence is based on the ability to learn and make meaningful choices. Though computer programs can do so much more than simple minded animals like dogs are capable of, I believe a dog would still be placed on the intelligence spectrum over most. An animal capable of even simple thought can learn and adapt to its environment; it is not restricted by whatever rudimentary functions it was born with. A calculator will never do anything but the arithmetic operations it was programmed to do. It does not know anything and cannot change its knowledge, so I believe it to be just as artificially intelligent as a stereo or a car.
	One machine that I would consider artificially intelligent is IBMs Watson. Watson has the ability to have new information from the internet loaded onto it and to learn from that information. As shown in the Jeopardy! video in class, Watson makes choices between probable answers, choices that would undoubtedly change or have differing favorability by the machine if conflicting information was available to it. While Watson still falls short of what many would consider true intelligence, I would still place the machine on the spectrum due to its ability to learn and make meaningful decisions.
	Though significant advances in artificial intelligence have been made in my lifetime and more are sure to come, I do not think that anything will ever be made that approaches human intelligence or even the intelligence of many other simpler animals. To place a calculator on the same playing field as things that can think is silly in my opinion. The complexity that goes into true thought is something that I dont think humans will ever fully be able to recreate, but just because it is difficult doesnt mean we should lower the standard for what constitutes intelligence.
