As long as we keep using the marketing term "AI" and we just argue about what the technical definition is, we're going to have this problem. If Penrose wants,

As long as we keep using the marketing term "AI" and we just argue about what the technical definition is, we're going to have this problem. If Penrose wants, he can define AI using the Turing test. That's reasonable. I can say, no, that's moving the goalposts, my definition of AI is "things that looked incredibly hard in 1990. By that standard decent automatic translation is definitely AI." That's also reasonable. As long as our definition of "AI" is fluid, discussing whether it's been met or not is pointless.