Re: AI isn't

In article <vei8di$12ono$1@dont-email.me>,
Mike Van Pelt  <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:

In article <vea9el$hvu$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

Am I the only one here who is annoyed by the use of "AI" to mean
anything other than human-level (or better) machine intelligence?

>
(raises hand)
>
I'd settle for 70-ish IQ intelligence.
>
What the marketroids are pleased to call "Artificial
Intelligence" is not intelligence of any kind, just pattern
matching.  (With amusing results where it breaks down
and includes nonexistent scientific references or legal
citations.) I've been lobbying for everyone to call it
"Simulated Intelligence", but not gotten much traction.

[Hal Heydt]
Dorothy's--and my--usual snark about anything claiming the be
"AI" is that it was mostly "A" and very little "I".