it is worth mentioning some of the historical/ philosophical debates behind AI that have persisted for over a half century. AI as a field has absolutely/ unequivocally made major progress and evolution in sophistication over many decades. however it has succumbed to early hype and optimism about its achievements. so in some ways it has not been an "even" advance.
there is a so-called moving the goalposts problem in AI. not sure who first originated this observation but it can be found in many papers. it is mainly levelled by AI proponents in favor of AI research and they have stated that critics argue that no matter what is achieved by AI technology, it is not human. there is clearly some validity to this observation. so there is some psychological component to attempting to measure AI progress that tends to normalize/ minimize significant advances.
so in short "weak" and "strong" AI are informal notions mainly used in philosophical/ meta analysis of AI. the problem with AI is that there are no hard-quantitative ways to measure it. 64
even the Turing test with its dressings of impartiality (of so called "judges") involves a large amount of human subjectivity. unfortunately <PERSON> did not seem to reference this subjectivity much in his original statement and its in some ways "haunted" the field ever since.
if any hard-quantitative way of measuring AI were formulated, it would probably fail as far as anyone can tell. there are quantitative ways of measuring the performance of AI related applications, eg say chess scores. and computers did very poorly at chess originally, and those scores improved to become superior to humans. in earlier philosophical writing, some AI critics did accept that chess or game playing was a sign of intelligence, but that concept melted away after computers successfully played chess and there seemed to be no "human like" aspect to their operation or play. on the other hand some chess experts felt that in the legendary <PERSON> Deep Blue game, the computer seemed to exhibit a kind of "creativity".
as a particular case study, the "moving the goalposts" phenomenon happened on both sides of this match. Deep Blue became more powerful with software and hardware advances, and <PERSON> increasingly complained that the match rules were unfair. <PERSON> had long said that a computer would never beat him. when it did, he asserted it was through cheating. so similar caveats apply to the study of "weak" and "strong" AI. 44