It might not quite be AI in the way we normally think of it, but there's been some interesting work to develop artificially evolved RF antenna - NASA has some in space https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/exploringtheunive...

Here the antenna design is generated by the computer rather than an individual.

If anyone has their name on such a patent, I'd bet its Danny Hillis.

There is none as the “I” in “AI” is a fallacy.

“AI” is like blockchain, mostly useless technology that wastes huge amount of resources where there’s almost always better and way simpler solutions except in very marginal use cases.

Headline(t=0): “AI $name beats humans at $task! The singularity is upon us!”

Headline(t=a): “AI $name isn’t real AI, because it’s just a $latest_buzzword.”

Headline(t=b): “AI doesn’t exist and never will. Humans are the best!”

Headline(t=c): “AI $name beats humans at $task! The singularity is upon us!”

I don’t deny there are plenty of buzzwords around — nor do I deny that AI/ML is glorified statistics with hopeful startups who don’t realise that outsourcing the training to Mechanical Turk won’t provide enough training data — but there are a lot of things that were introduced as AI and which have proven useful, including many things that are now regarded as the better and simpler alternatives to AI/ML.

That is entirely a matter of definitions of intelligence. If it's as in Strong AI, then we're nowhere near yet. But if it's as in limited scope better than humans, then we're very good.

Let's put the definition aside for a moment. Lets say we have a black box that doctors can put images into, and it will tell if there are areas that look like it might be cancer. Is that AI? Is it an AI if you can teach it what cancer look like?

It's not AI, it's a dynamic programming algorithm.

Dynamic programming algorithm is a well defined and very specific term. This is not dynamic programming in any form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming

> there’s almost always better and way simpler solutions

Given that automation hasn't took over all jobs, I suppose that the solution is "hire people to do it". Correct?