People who lived in the 1960s did not by definition live in the 21st century so their definitions of what things may or may not be is immaterial.
We know what we mean by AI, and attempting to redefine that in the service of some kind of all “sides have a point” fence sitter, is a brainless arguement and is is definitively unhelpful. Defining AI strictly by “a definition of a system that does a thing based on an input”, is both overly broad and demonstrably unhelpful. It’s like arguing that a building that has been reduced to ash by a fire still contains the same constituent elements. Intellectually it’s correct, practically it’s ridiculous.
Broadly, you are attempting to define AI as anything that any computerised system does. How can you not see that that is an overly broad definition that entirely skirts anything remotely close to the realms of helpfulness.
People who lived in the 1960s did not by definition live in the 21st century so their definitions of what things may or may not be is immaterial.
We know what we mean by AI, and attempting to redefine that in the service of some kind of all “sides have a point” fence sitter, is a brainless arguement and is is definitively unhelpful. Defining AI strictly by “a definition of a system that does a thing based on an input”, is both overly broad and demonstrably unhelpful. It’s like arguing that a building that has been reduced to ash by a fire still contains the same constituent elements. Intellectually it’s correct, practically it’s ridiculous.
Broadly, you are attempting to define AI as anything that any computerised system does. How can you not see that that is an overly broad definition that entirely skirts anything remotely close to the realms of helpfulness.