>> There's nothing wrong with being excited about AI developments. It's just that historically, people like you who go around calling things AI that aren't
Well there is no and probably can be no solid definition of AI, at least partly because it depends on a consistent deifintion of what intelligience itself is. Some people believe that nothing other than humans even have the capability to be intelligent because it requires a soul or whatever, while, some people think a cellphone is at least partially intelligent, hence the name smartphone.
Thats why when you asked
>> Where in the world are actual intelligent networks?
it appeared to me to be a very ignorant question and was really my poiint in showing you lots of diverse links to differnet forms of what different smart people consider intelligence to be.
Regardless of what you clearly thing about neural nets, I still belive they demonstrate at least some level of basic intelligence, as does most any algorithm that evaluates and adapts and so improves its own behaviour in order to reach some goal without needing ongoing input at each iteration (i.e. programming) by a human. To me that algorithm is demostrating basic intelligence even though a human programmed it to be that way.
It seems to me that until someone can define "true" intellgience (whatever that means) there is no point in trying to diferentiate between it and apparent intelligence, since I think both are no more than an emergent side-effect of a self-improving (i.e. learning) system that has some objective. Much like how a bunch of robots all programmed with a few very simple rules can exhibit very complex emergent behaviour when operating/interacting/viewed as a swarm.
