> The issue is, that many non-tech (and I'm starting to think also some tech) people believe that "AI" is an accurate label, and therefore that they can expect

> The issue is, that many non-tech (and I'm starting to think also some tech) people believe that "AI" is an accurate label, and therefore that they can expect these algorithms to be able to think intelligently. Until we can define it, I think we should stop using the term 'intelligent' at all. It misleads people precisely because it means different things in different contexts. If something can comprehend language, solve word problems, get a really high score on the SATs and LSATs and translate perfectly from any language to any other, we could definitely say it is 'intelligent' in all of those contexts. Is it 'intelligent' in other contexts? Applying a technology that is really good at many things to things which it is not good at and selling that as a panacea is not a new idea. If we want it to change in this instance, we should start at least defining the terms we use so that we can determine the scope of its relevance to any area. Otherwise people make assumptions to their detriment and we can't agree even on what we are arguing about.