The New Scientist has a decent article on artificial intelligence minus the hype, that is: more artifice than intelligence. Here's a conversation that the author struck up with 'Intellibuddy', a state of the art version of a chatbot called ALICE (Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity) that was invented in 1995 by a Richard Wallace of San Francisco.

Intellibuddy: Hi, I'm Intellibuddy! Nice to meet you.

JM: I'm writing an article about artificial intelligence.

Intellibuddy: Will you include me in your essay?

JM: I will if you can persuade me you really are intelligent.

Intellibuddy: Would you recommend this action to a friend?

JM: Errr...are you intelligent?

Intellibuddy: Ummm I am highly intelligent. I have many intellectual functions.

JM: What are your intellectual functions?

Intellibuddy: Thought, reason, intelligence, logic and deduction.

JM: What is your IQ?

Intellibuddy: My IQ is about 250 in human terms.

JM: Wow, you're cleverer than my editor.

Intellibuddy: I'm glad your [sic] impressed, User.

You think I am cleverer than my editor.

JM: No, cleverer than my editor.

Intellibuddy: I'm glad your impressed, User.

You think I am cleverer than my editor.

JM: No, cleverer than my editor.

Intellibuddy: I'm glad your impressed, User.

You think I am cleverer than my editor...

The article then highlights the attempt by a developer named Doug Lenat to create a new generation A.I. system, 'Cyc' (pronouced 'psych') that will be aired in a couple months, and is supposed to pass the famous Turing test: a human who 'speaks' to it will not be able to discern that he is talking to a computer.

What you guys think? Would you recommend Doug's confidence to a friend?