There is a joke that goes more or less that any sufficiently advanced AI is indistinguishable from 'just' statistics. But statistics (the unreasonable effective

There is a joke that goes more or less that any sufficiently advanced AI is indistinguishable from 'just' statistics. But statistics (the unreasonable effectiveness of data) and the philosophy of probability are very profound topics that delve into the very fabric and nature of the universe. The same things keep appearing everywhere too. Bayesian networks and quantum mechanics. Entropy. Monte Carlo. So many. I have a personal theory that we learn physical actions from statistical models more than modelling physical variables. Otherwise training how to do something as easy as a back flip (from a physics perspective) or flare would not be so hard. Another problem is that nobody knows what the I part of AI is. So from the get go saying what AI is and isn't, is a failed experiment. I don't know what I is but i bet there are times you will know it when you see it and i won't. and vice versa. I also contend that modern systems do learn in a very basic sense. But I suspect we will also disagree on what learning is.