I've been involved in things originally called "AI" for most of my "career", such as it was. I've worked in a lot of, as they were called at the time, Artificia

I've been involved in things originally called "AI" for most of my "career", such as it was. I've worked in a lot of, as they were called at the time, Artificial Intelligence projects. Of course, once they moved into the implementation phase they were no longer AI. For example, I worked on natural language understanding, robots, machine vision, neural networks, expert systems, speech recognition, touch sensing, self-reproducing systems, path planning, assembly planning, malware detection, computer algebra, knowledge representation, and human-robot interaction. Russell states: "I want to be clear that we are a long way from achieving general purpose AI". I want to be clear that anyone who talks about "general purpose AI" is failing to define their terms clearly. In fact, I suspect that any definition would exclude most, if not all, humans. Rod Brooks is probably closest when he discusses the idea of learning at the 1-year, 2-year, 5-year, etc. levels of self-learning. When you hear the phrases "Artificial General Intelligence" or "General Purpose AI" you should insist on a clear, exact definition. Otherwise the discussion is about nothing, basically pop-philosophy.