> We refine our hypothesis of “this is artificial intelligence” once we gain more information.
You're basically saying skepticism is the correct approach and it doesn't matter if we make confident yet wrong predictions about the (lack of) future potential of AI.
I mean, sure, that works too. But I think that's basically admitting the goalposts are moving.
You can call it that if you want, but it’s not the same as goalpost shifting for well-definable things like “universal healthcare” or “trans rights”. We don’t collectively agree on what artificial intelligence is, so it makes sense that it is constantly refined, and efforts that fall short are called out as such.
You're basically saying skepticism is the correct approach and it doesn't matter if we make confident yet wrong predictions about the (lack of) future potential of AI.
I mean, sure, that works too. But I think that's basically admitting the goalposts are moving.