> Your “definition” of “AI” is full of wishy washy anthropomorphisms like “perceive” and “discover”, and elsewhere is so broad it could apply to just about anything.
Neither "perceive" nor "discover" is an anthropomorphism. Not only on a technicality such as "anthropomorphism excludes animals, so you would be saying you think animals can't do those things" (I wouldn't normally bring it up, but you want live by the technical precision sword, you get this) — but also for the much more important point that examples such as a chess engine doesn't need to have eyes, neither does a chatbot, nor even a robot: they only need an input and an output.
Definitionally all functions have an input and an output, and if you insist on mathematically precise formulation of "discover" I can rephrase that statement without loss as:
"AI is the field of research for how to automatically create a best-fit function f(x) to maximise the expected value of some other reward function r(f(y)), given only examples x_0 … x_n".
Any specific AI model is thereby some f() produced by this research.
> An astable multivibrator with two LEDs at each output and a switch fits your definition.
No, it doesn't, there's no "discover" in that.
And at this point, I could replace you with an early version of ChatGPT and the prompt "give a deliberately obtuse response to the following comment: ${comment goes here}"
> People do in fact say blood letting the humors “isn’t medicine”.
> So you’re interpretation of “medicine” is yet another common example that also exhibits your apparently super rare “AI effect”?
Those things, which are your examples not mine, were actively shown to not work, and this was shown by the field of research called medicine, so no.
(Also, "apparently super rare" is putting words into my mouth and wildly misrepresents "I wonder which other professions exhibit the same effect?").
Again, what you write here is so wildly wrong that I have to assume that your brand new account is either a deliberate trolling attempt, or ChatGPT session with a prompt of "miss the point entirely" — but of course, I have met humans who are equally capable of non-comprehension before such tools were available. (I think those humans were doing arguments as soldiers, but it's hard to be sure).
> You appear to be changing the rigidity of your definition of “AI” ad hoc to satisfy whatever argument you’re trying to make in that moment.
You asked for a definition, you got one, you complained about the definition. That's you being loose.
I have a fixed definition, and am noting how other people change theirs to always exclude anything that actually exists. Which you are doing, which is you being loose.
What would be shifting track, would be to use the observation that you are hard to distinguish from an LLM to introduce a new-to-this-thread definition of AI — but I'm going to say that Turing can keep the imitation game, because although his anthropomorphic model of intelligence has its uses, I view it as narrow and parochial compared to the field as a whole.
> In this thread alone you refer to products, the “aspirins”, as “AI”, but then claim your definition is that “AI” is a “field of research”, your “medicine”.
No.
Aspirin is a medicine, an example of a product of the field of research which is medicine.
The equivalence is "[[aspirin] is to [medical research]] as [[route finding] is to [AI research]]". One can shorten "I perform medical research" into "I work in medicine" and not be misunderstood, you are misunderstanding the contraction of "this is an AI algorithm" to "this is AI".
You are the one dismissing the existing solutions in the field of AI and sarcastically suggesting that anyone who says otherwise thinks we've solved all AI problems and can stop researching it now — which is as wrong as dismissing aspirin as "not a medicine" and sarcastically suggesting that anyone who says otherwise thinks "we've solved all medical problems and can stop researching it now".
> Take the press release from the product being discussed here and replace “AI” with “field of research”.
> “Corpo just released a new ‘field of research’ for your PC.”
I see you're unfamiliar with the entire history of scientific research software, too.