[fasterik]

>This problem only exists because of the marketing move to call anything even slightly ML related "AI".

We need to remember what "Artificial Intelligence" actually means. It refers to the field of research starting in the 1950's developing algorithms related to combinatorial search, planning, and reasoning. Machine Learning isn't AI in the sci-fi movie sense, but it's among the topics you'll find in a textbook like Russell and Norvig.

A problem like protein folding isn't tangentially related to AI, it's at the heart of the kinds of problems the field has been trying to tackle for decades. Yet when there are legitimate breakthroughs, people deride it as "not real AI."

[hunterpayne]

That isn't how we break up the field of AI. ML are the algorithms that are based on statistics and other numeric methods. The other algorithms are based on logic and perhaps some philosophical methodologies. We don't really have a name for that second group, its just part of AI. Then there is Reinforcement Learning which is a sub-field of ML and incorporates a Pavlovian methodology.

AI is the sum of all of these groups. Also, the "not real AI" thing is more about not real AGI. That's a very different target.

[fasterik]

I'm not sure if your comment disagrees with mine. I think we agree that machine learning is a sub-field of artificial intelligence. Evidenced by the fact that Russell and Norvig, the most authoritative textbook on the subject, includes multiple chapters on ML.

AGI isn't a well-defined concept. So when people say something isn't "real AI" because it's not AGI, I can't take them seriously because they're implying that everything the field has worked on for the past 70 years isn't real AI.

[bulbar]

AI effectively has always been "currently best methods that mimic human decision making".