Yes . Immoral laws aren ' t legitimate . <| sep |> It ' s the police ' s responsibility to write the laws down the same in every language . If your first language isn ' t English and one law is only on the English police website , then the police fucked up , not Machida <| sep |> Can you please point me specifically to where you ' re getting your definitionrequirements from in your sources ? I haven ' t read them completely in order to comment here , so I may be overlooking things , but it seems like they don ' t actually agree with your definitions . AIMA has tons of content on AI subfields with zero learning , as well as image recognition . In Chapter 1 . 1 they cite 8 rather vague definitions and divide them over 4 categories . The authors do say they focus on the rational agents category , but not that the others are somehow not AI . It ' s here that I see the requirements for computer agents operate autonomously , perceive their environment , persist over a prolonged time period , adapt to change , and create and pursue goals . That seems somewhat similar to what you ' re saying , but I ' ll again point out that the rest of the book does not make any effort to exclude things that don ' t meet these requirements . You also mention the White House ' s Strategic Plan , but upon skimming it I don ' t see any attempt to define AI . However , on page 12 or 20 48 we do see this Major milestones when AI first surpassed human performance include chess 1997 , trivia 2011 , Atari games 2013 , image recognition 2015 , speech recognition 2015 , and Go 2016 . This and other places in the document suggests to me that they think that things like Watson trivia and image recognition are in fact AI . So it seems that according to this document submissions 2 , 3 and 4 out of 5 on rthatsnotai actually are AI ! The first submission is continuously analyzing and learning from behavior to give advice , so that seems to fit your definition rather perfectly . It ' s unclear to me whether the lie detector submission # 5 updates its model continuously which would make it easily fit your definition , but even if it doesn ' t , I think it would be very much at home in the two documents you cite . It seems to me that there is actually quite a bit of agreement about what constitutes narrow AI , and that we can indeed see it in these documents . However , it is simply not what you think it is or should be , which seems to be closer to the idea of AGI . Perhaps to clarify things , can you mention a few examples of things that you think are AI ?