> Explain to me why a Tool-assisted Speedrun doesn't count as "AI". Its certainly not a human who is playing that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFB0kuPx5mQ h

> Explain to me why a Tool-assisted Speedrun doesn't count as "AI". Its certainly not a human who is playing that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFB0kuPx5mQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFB0kuPx5mQ). Because TAS are made by human speedrunners, who go through the painstaking process of specifying inputs for each frame. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, TAS are basically the exact opposite of AI. > I'm not sure if that sort of thing... > But if we have "Fly the F35 airframe"... > Our cell phones are largely manufactured by machines... That's a red herring. There's plenty of evidence we can make very useful narrow AI in many fields, and nobody is arguing against that. The point is, they are, well, narrow. What your parent is saying is that there's no evidence that the statistical techniques behind the current wave of AI are capable of anything else. To paraphrase Norvig, it could well be that we're trying to get to the moon by climbing a tree, reporting steady progress all the way to the top of the tree.