Please stop. These discussions never lead anywhere, and all they reveal in the end is that $SOME_AI_PROJECT doesn't meet $YOUR_IDIOSYNCRATIC_DEFINITION_OF_AI.

Please stop. These discussions never lead anywhere, and all they reveal in the end is that $SOME_AI_PROJECT doesn't meet $YOUR_IDIOSYNCRATIC_DEFINITION_OF_AI. For the n'thousandth time: AI does not (necessarily) mean "perfect fidelity with human intelligence". It's many things including a field of research, a body of knowledge, a suite of technologies that display behavior which could be classified as "intelligent" in some sense, and an aspiration, among others. Current "AI" systems absolutely fall under this rubric, even if they aren't functionally equivalent to human intelligence. Never mind that we don't know for sure that human intelligence doesn't ultimately reduce to "just pattern matching" at some level. And never mind the "AI Effect"[1] where the public at large quits considering anything "AI" once it works. Usually by saying things like "it's just computation" or "it's just pattern matching." :-) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect