I think it’s more an issue of talking past each other. In order to build a program, you kind of need to specify the required capabilities, and then standard eng

I think it’s more an issue of talking past each other. In order to build a program, you kind of need to specify the required capabilities, and then standard engineering practice is to decompose that into a set of solutions tailored to the problem. But intelligence is not just about a list of capabilities; they’re necessary conditions, but not sufficient. This is what leads to the AI effect conflict. We describe some capabilities that are associated with intelligence, build systems that exceed human performance ability on a narrow range of tasks for those capabilities, and then argue about whether or not that limited set of capabilities on a narrow domain of tasks is sufficient to be called “intelligence”. Recognizing faces, playing chess, and predicting the next few words in my email are all things I’d expect an intelligent agent to be able to do, but I’d also expect to be able to pick up that agent and plop it down in a factory and have it operate a machine; put it in the kitchen and have it wash my dishes; or bring it to work and have it help me with that. We already have machines that help me do all of those things, but none of them really exhibit any intelligence. And any one of those machines getting 10x better at their single narrow domain still won’t seem like “intelligence”.