As another practitioner, I wholeheartedly agree - most of what is called AI today is ML, and thats basically pattern recognition via boundary relaxation solutio

As another practitioner, I wholeheartedly agree - most of what is called AI today is ML, and thats basically pattern recognition via boundary relaxation solutions - it is necessary for "AI" but not sufficient - BUT - my problem with the authors position is that he keeps not noticing A stands for artificial - we've had other solutions in other techs, Mycin and Dendral come to mind - no, they weren't AI either, however I think when future work begins to incorporate more than the PDP groups seed stock, we may see AI's begin to appear - and then the arguments will start all over with 'too narrow to be intelligent' - first we'll have to figure out 'it looks like cognition' before we move on to anything remotely resembling actual cognition - at present, not only can we not do it, we have never ending arguments about its very definition.