Nucleus

I do not think computers interpret information. Let me explain.

I don't know why you thought the "hammer" analogy wasn't valid; I didn't say it processed information but anyway, I will give you a closer analogy.

If I have a set of raw data and I draw a graph then I have interpreted the data. I have employed a set of rules that allows me to re-present the data in such a way that it allows my brain to more easilly turn it into information. (Note: it is not information until I read the graph. To someone else who looked at the graph and didn't understand it, it wouldn't be information).

Now, if I transfer my set of rules in to an automated process (such as a software program), the graph can now be automatically generated from the data. Does this mean I have transfered intelligence to the graph generation process? I think not. The program has not interpreted the data, merely re-presented it. It is only by someone looking at the graph, extracting meaning from it and interpreting it that turns it into information. The graph has no meaning to the software program that generated it. It is just an automated process set into motion by it's programmer.

For me the important point is that a computer only ever interprets data the way it is programmed, by contrast we are distinguished from a computer in that we have the ability to change the way we interpret raw data and I describe the process of evolving interpretation: learning. Humans, monkeys, cats, mice all have it, where as computers don't.
I think what you are talking about, an evolving interpretation of data, is just the next level of intelligence. A meta intelligence. Whilst this level of intelligence is always going to be superior to a static interpretation, it is superflous for the basic definition.

I don't think Deep Blue was intelligent. It was just a transfered set of rules. It wasn't even that sophisticated by todays AI standards.