[chermi]

AI had meaning that originated from CS theorists before being usurped and losing all meaning. I think tech and associated marketing (which are great, don't get me wrong, I love money!) are the ones at fault here. It should be more of a "philosophical" question, though I'd prefer instead perhaps it be academic.

I'm not trying to be rude, but your example of what AI should be is narrow and not very grandiose compared the original meaning. I understand you were talking pretty loosely, so I feel like I'm singling you out but this happened to be where I started typing, sorry!

It just reminded of how essentially all conversations about "AI" go. They seem to end up being quite specific, narrow pattern recognition problems at the end of the day. Maybe there's some decision theory on top of it. Maybe if there's enough money /people involved, there's more components, so it's a complicated enough supervised learning problem that it mimics people to a sufficient extent that it looks intelligent enough to make a headline. But it's a copycat, not intelligent. Hey, full circle, Melanie Mitchell! - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_(software)