&gt; I think people&#x27;s ideas of intelligence are fuzzy and inconsistent, and it&#x27;s far too often confused with things we associate with intelligence (from consciousness to independence and arrogance).<p>I can certainly agree with that -- it&#x27;s not clear at all what intelligence is -- but induction and pattern recognition (really, statistical clustering) are either not sufficient for anything which we&#x27;d reasonably call intelligence, or can be found in creatures that we&#x27;d say have negligible intelligence (insects). Again, I&#x27;m not saying the achievements aren&#x27;t impressive or that they don&#x27;t resemble anything we can associate with biological beings, but even most biological beings aren&#x27;t intelligent.<p>In any event, no one claims (with any evidence) that the current &quot;statistical induction&quot; algorithms (inspired in part by some features of biological systems) are a simple, primitive form of &quot;general intelligence&quot; algorithms. They may well be, but we don&#x27;t know that. So the &quot;I&quot; in AI is, if not a marketing gimmick, at most inspirational and aspirational. As far as we know, those algorithms are as far from human intelligence as solid-fuel rockets are from warp drives. Understanding it otherwise only leads to people conjuring up fantastical deadlines to achieving &quot;true&quot; intelligence. For all we know, we are as likely a century away from &quot;true&quot; AI as we are five years away.