I'll never understand the suggestion that what people really want from "artificial intelligence" is a 1970s chess computer, boosted by modern computer speeds, as if that was what people REALLY meant by "intelligence" and someone who suggests there's more to intelligence than that is being unreasonable.
Sure there was a time when computers couldn't beat Kasparov at chess and that was a thing to work on and a goal to get to, but was that ever the ultimate "goalposts" for "intelligence" and not, say, HAL9000?
