> For starters, why not actually define the I in AI in a way that can be measured? I can say for starters that attempts to do it started at least at 1905 when

> For starters, why not actually define the I in AI in a way that can be measured? I can say for starters that attempts to do it started at least at 1905 when Bine created the first IQ test, and it never ended since. The craze at some point came to a "intelligence is what IQ test measures". But thankfully scientists mostly rejected this novel idea. Turing's test is on the same quest, and it seems to me that people will reject the test as irrelevant if computer programs will master it better than people. It seems impossible to define intelligence. Oh, you can say "I think, therefore I'm intelligent". But it does not help much to create a definition of an intelligence, because what you see in your mind is a result of thinking, the process itself is hidden from you. It is a black box for you. Like you vision: it took computer scientists half a century to reverse-engineer human vision exactly because it is a black box for us. > Parenting for humans needs roughly 10-30 years to get results that the parent is really unhappy with. Why on earth don't Comp Sci get this Because Comp Sci is unencumbered by limitations of biological parents. They can try highly experimental approach and then just `rm` the result from a storage. They would be trying electical shocks or public decapitation of randomly selected models, if it made any sense.