> This captures the crux of the problem in that we claimed we’d have True AI when a computer could beat a human in chess. But when that occurred with Deep Blue, and we saw the code, it was explainable and therefore not true AI. Then we moved the goalpost and said that if a computer could beat a human in Go, then we’d have True AI. When that occurred with AlphaGo and we saw the code, we moved the goalposts yet again.

We believed that chess and go proficiency were good proxies for true AI. They weren't. They were proxies for advancement, but the underlying issue is that we don't know how much we don't know about the human mind.

Every AI advancement helps us learn more about our minds, but the amount we don't know is still unknown.

The moving of the goalposts was not done because "we saw the code" it was because Deep Blue and Alpha Go were obviously not AI. Again, we were just wrong about those tasks being good proxies.