"Not so, I have mentioned several times various AI products of the last decades. Once more, what I and Mead criticized was the hype and expectations set by the AI community spokespersons. "

Oh, and who are these spokespersons, pray tell? Let me take these down. Last I knew, the manifold and diverse fileds and schools of thought under the umbrella 'research into cognition' had eloected nor appointed no spokesperson. Again, I'm dying to hear.

Mead's fruit fly example is cogent and unaddressed.

No- it is addressed. No- it is not cogent. How does the various Artifical Insects, the entrants into the DARPA Urban Challenge, etc, not address the criticism? The Ball is in your court, and this is unanswered. Until you have cleanly articulated points about how they do not, then your case is sunk.

"You instead have decided to sidetrack discussion into precice definitions of intelligence per se, something everyone continues to strugglle with and something where there is not a consensus."

Good lord- There is much more nuance here than you are aware of- this much is obvious. What is also obvious is that you are haughtily and arrogantly writing off the efforts of people because they have not been able to produce systems that conform to your un-articulated and un-defined criteria!!!

Thats just damn stupid, and you have got to be smart enough to see that. This is not side-tracking the discussion. If you produce a frame for this discussion that is loaded and ill-defined, then I have every right to demand its clarification, and if you can not provide that, then it sinks your case.

You throw this magic fruitfly out there- well, okay, I have given you reference to a multitude of projects and areas of research that seem to exhibit the same criterion you insist are lacking in the field. Instead of addressing that and showing how they do not address the issues you wish to raise by your fruit fly saw, you accuse me of 'sidetracking' and insist that the 'fruitfly hypothesis' is valid.

And you abuse the basic terminology of the field while claiming that 'proponents and skeptics' from 'day one' have held up this fruit fly analogy as some central issue or goal in the field- which I do not believe to be the case- in fact ic contradicted by the substantial study I have done in the field.

So you don't answer my points, refuse reasonable requests for clarification for terms that are key in your criticism, exhibit ignorance of the basics of the field, abuse terminology... I give up. Your position and argument is Johannes-ian, and I don't think you know thing one about which you are talking about.

Yeti