And here is the exact phenomenon we're talking about, in action!

Back when neural nets were "fundamentally novel" we didn't have the understanding or computing power to tap their potential. So they "weren't really AI" because they couldn't do much that was interesting.

Now, we have a better understanding of how to use them, and we have enough computing grunt to make them do really interesting things. But they're "not really AI" because they're "not fundamentally novel."

Well, if what we had ten years ago wasn't AI, then what's the argument for "same thing, but running a little faster on better hardware" being AI?

Just like James Watt's steam engine was just a refinement of Thomas Newcomen's model and yet fundamentally changed the industrial landscape in Europe.

It's not the same thing previously rules were being fed into the computers now data is being fed into the computers and it is understanding or getting the rules by itself and then improving itself based on what it understands. AI wont be created, A day will just come when the algorithms that learn and improve on its own will reach sentience. I expect Google to reach it first simply becuase of the amount data and processing power in the Google servers.

> And yet Google's Go-playing approach still doesn't seem to involve fundamentally novel techniques.

So? The fact that it is worth a damn at playing go was unexpected to most people afaict. What do you mean "fundamentally novel", are you expecting the field to advance from cars that barely avoid accidents, to Ava in one fell swoop?

Frankly I would prefer that advancement in AI not occur in sudden unexpected bursts of progress, thanks.