>> Most papers in AI aren’t even reviewed by peers or editor and guess what: we have lots of progress happening. If by progress you mean a constant creep of SO

>> Most papers in AI aren’t even reviewed by peers or editor and guess what: we have lots of progress happening. If by progress you mean a constant creep of SOTA on meaningless benchmarks, then yeah, we have "progress", but that progress is a strange kind of progress that is measured only on its own, self-selected criteria, and that does nothing to advance the total sum of knowledge. The main beneficiaries of this "progress" are large technology corporations who have now taken over research in AI and are turning it to profit. There has definitely been proress in money-making schemes and personal aggrandisement schemes of charlatans and mountebanks, in AI, aplenty. If by progress you meant scientific progress, then, no, there has been none of that in recent years. It is questionable if there has ever been any kind of scientific progress associated with AI. While early pioneers of AI, like John McCarthy and Claude Shannon, wished to establish a scientific programme of research in human and machine intelligence, with the purpose of understanding the former by developing the latter, this programme was soon set aside, and activity concentrated instead in what McCarthy used to call the "look ma, no hands disease of AI": >> Much work in AI has the ``look ma, no hands'' disease. Someone programs a computer to do something no computer has done before and writes a paper pointing out that the computer did it. The paper is not directed to the identification and study of intellectual mechanisms and often contains no coherent account of how the program works at all. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/reviews/lighthill/lighthill.html http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/reviews/lighthill/lighthi... And this is where we still are today. AI is no science.