Defining AI is hard - we can agree on that. I think the best definitions are in the form of tests that match the performance against organisms that have develop

Defining AI is hard - we can agree on that. I think the best definitions are in the form of tests that match the performance against organisms that have developed intelligence through millions of years of evolution. The Turning Test is a good example of this. I think that we can all agree that an AI that passes the Turing Test is intelligent. But that is the final goal post. What about intermediate milestones? My opinion is that games just don't count. I think that creating similar test as milestones would do more to progress the AI field. Like the Turning Test, it must test that parity with another intelligent being is achieved. Intelligence is a spectrum from "not very" to "omniscient". What are some organisms that are closer to the "not very" end of this spectrum that would be good candidates for parity tests? How would a parity test be performed? It is in answering that question that one arrives at “There is no AI without robotics”. If you want to demonstrate that your artificial cockroach is as intelligent as the real thing, then you have to build a robot. It doesn't have to be a physical robot as long as you have a simulator that can do a very accurate simulations of the physics of the environment, the AI candidate, and their interactions. That's not so easy, which is why many if not most researchers build physical robots. Would a cockroach be a good first milestone? Too complex? How about a worm? Achieved parity with cockroach? Then move on to Jumping Spiders. When your great-grandchildren achieve that parity, my great-grandchildren will certainly celebrate with them.