> But worse than that, the thing you linked to actively denies your own prior claim, which was (and I'm copy-pasting) "I struggle to see how anything we have to

> But worse than that, the thing you linked to actively denies your own prior claim, which was (and I'm copy-pasting) "I struggle to see how anything we have today is “AI”", even though that quotation is a statement about your own beliefs. This is the insidiousness of your ad hoc definition flip flopping. You can claim you meant one and I’m addressing the other, and vice versa, whenever it suits you. The linked article is about your “field of research” definition of the term “AI” while the quote from my original reply is addressing your “product goalposts” definition. > It's identical in meaning. Well I’ve tried but am unable to find a dictionary that defines “discover” as relying on reward functions. Can you link me to one? Here’s a popular dictionary’s definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discover https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discover >> Artificial Neural Networks … lack reward functions Nice, you removed the pertinent context of “or did so in earlier iterations” with that ellipsis to make your point. Nice. > Deeply and fundamentally wrong. Read up on Minskys SNARCs which used trial and error learning without the need for a predefined reward function.