Agreed. What I mean by context is the set of goals/rules and the interface into the game- and the fact that we decided what those things are, not the machine. The machine didn't define it's own goals then work towards them. We told it win=good, fail=bad, high score=good, etc., and whatever other number of assumptions need to be strictly defined to support those things. If we had defined the opposite goal, we'd have a machine that's amazing at losing at games instead, but we had to provide those parameters. Human intelligence can interact with the world without a strictly defined interface- machines can't really do that. I mean that in the sense that if you disconnect that machine from that game, and put it in the middle of the basketball court, it's not going to be able to play that game. Even connecting it to a similar games has to be done via the right interface, you can't just hand it a mouse and keyboard, or open up Steam and say "have at it"- there needs to be something in between to say something like "look at this memory location for your high score", "count the length of time it took before losing as part of the success score", etc. It can't go "oh, this is also a game. I need to figure out how to win it". If you didn't specifically engineer it to move towards a goal, it wouldn't otherwise be trying to play the game, because it doesn't understand that concept. Computers don't have understanding and goals, they're engineered to work towards OUR goals based on OUR understanding. I think it's amazing too, I just don't think it's really "intelligence" as I understand it. There's still a long way to go, I think a much longer way than other people think. I disagree. I think that's a very good way to put it. That's exactly what the "training" does. There's a lot of fancy math and cleverness that goes into weighing these scores, and balancing out which branches to explore next, but I've yet to come across anything that suggests it boils down to anything else.