[mattowen_uk]

We don't have AI. AI is a buzzphrase overused by the media. What we have is Machine Learning (ML). If and only if, we get past the roadblock of the 'agent' creating some usable knowledge out of an unprogrammed experience, and forming conclusions based on that, will we have AI. For now, the mantra 'Garbage-in-garbage-out' applies; if the controller of the agent gets their rule-set wrong, the agent will not behave as expected. This is not AI. The agent hasn't learnt by itself that it is wrong.

For example, there's a small child who is learning to walk. The child falls down a lot. Eventually the child will work out a long list of arbitrary negatives connected to its wellbeing that are associated with falling down.

However, the parents, being impatient, reach inside the child's head and directly tweak some variables so that the child has more dread of falling over than they do of walking. Did the child learn this, or was it told ?

We currently do the latter every time an agent gets something wrong. Left to their own devices, 99.9% of agents will continue to fall down over and over again until the end of time.

We have a long way to go before we can say we've created 'AI'.

[KaoruAoiShiho]

Nah we have loads of AI now that don't need variable tweaking, like the OpenAI project that plays any retro game.

[Tenoke]

Definitions change, and it seems pointless to deny that AI is just used to mean 'modern ML'.

[dnautics]

Not even, we've used AI to describe entirely preprogrammed and non-ml agents in video games for decades now.

Is it artificial? Does it make decisions? It's an AI. Even if it's crappy, and not very intelligent.

[hinkley]

We also have a lot of graph-theory and optimization algorithms that get labeled AI by actual AI people. But the press is, almost to a man, always talking about machine learning and expert systems.