Hacker News Reader

> but people keep coming up with silly dismissals along the lines of it not being "real AI".

That is not what I meant at all. For me, it is the nature of the field and has been that way since the days I first learned it (the 1990's). Once an reproducible algorithm or methodology is discovered to solve an AI problem, it generally ceases to be an AI problem.

View on HN

Yeah, I actually agree with that. I wonder why you think our statements were incompatible, because that is the sort of thing I would have described as a "silly dismissal". The problem was clearly an AI problem right up until it's solved, and then suddenly it's "not real AI" and people talk about AI being overhyped or whatever.

Imagine if people treated programming languages like that. People would get excited about the idea of communicating with a computer, and then when you finally build Python and show it to them, they say "but that's just parsing, what about a real language?" The bar just keeps rising whenever you get close to it. That's the sort of thing I meant by "silly dismissal".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com