It's good to see a main funding agency's perspective. As a researcher, I like their non-hype way of defining AI as "programmed ability", which is accurate and

It's good to see a main funding agency's perspective. As a researcher, I like their non-hype way of defining AI as "programmed ability", which is accurate and realistic -- also puts AI further apart from real intelligence, which means unanticipated activities. I would like to know more what they see as "abstracting", from their perspective. We haven't got much further in our scientific understanding of intelligence - if you bought a psychology text book today and ten years ago there wouldn't be much of a breakthrough change detectable in terms of modeling cognition. And as impressive as some computer science AI models perform certain tasks, I haven't been taken by surprise by them asking me a question out of the blue, which is one of my personal litmus tests for intelligence.