Terms are ultimately defined by users of them, not some official or scientific body, for good or bad. I recommend people stop complaining about usage of the ter

Terms are ultimately defined by users of them, not some official or scientific body, for good or bad. I recommend people stop complaining about usage of the term. If somebody comes up with a clear distinction between "strong" AI and "weak" AI, then we can complain about "correct" usage with some wind at our back. Until then, the vocabulary issue is not worth focusing on. I suspect AI progress will be incremental such that there will be no definite distinction, only shades of whatever traits we use to define it. It will be more like a child slowly growing up rather than C3PO just walking out the lab door one of these days. The current crop of well-known AI uses mostly statistical pattern matching, and thus lacks "common sense" as we typically think of it. But eventually the pattern matching will be integrated into things like the CYC database of common-sense facts and start to show more common sense. However, it will probably make silly mistakes for a good while.