The whole history of AI debates seems to be an exercise in goalpost-moving. Whether it's AI proponents or skeptics, no one can seem to agree on a stable benchma

The whole history of AI debates seems to be an exercise in goalpost-moving. Whether it's AI proponents or skeptics, no one can seem to agree on a stable benchmark. Personally, I think it's due to intelligence itself being ill-defined as a concept. How are we supposed to build something when we don't even agree on what it is we're trying to build?