This is the insidiousness of your ad hoc definition flip flopping. You can claim you meant one and I’m addressing the other, and vice versa, whenever it suits you.
The linked article is about your “field of research” definition of the term “AI” while the quote from my original reply is addressing your “product goalposts” definition.
> It's identical in meaning.
Well I’ve tried but am unable to find a dictionary that defines “discover” as relying on reward functions. Can you link me to one?
Here’s a popular dictionary’s definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discover
>> Artificial Neural Networks … lack reward functions
Nice, you removed the pertinent context of “or did so in earlier iterations” with that ellipsis to make your point. Nice.
> Deeply and fundamentally wrong.
Read up on Minskys SNARCs which used trial and error learning without the need for a predefined reward function.
That's not even a coherent English sentence.
> Cool, cool another ad hoc change. At least this one is more precise.
You asked for it. It's identical in meaning. There's nothing "ad hoc" about this in either the original or the precise form.
> Artificial Neural Networks … lack reward functions
Deeply and fundamentally wrong.
But worse than that, the thing you linked to actively denies your own prior claim, which was (and I'm copy-pasting) "I struggle to see how anything we have today is “AI”", even though that quotation is a statement about your own beliefs.
Even by trying to use that source you are engaging as arguments-as-soldiers, using something that contradicts your own other points.
> Oh, I see why you are so passionate about these products now.
I've heard much the same projection about my inner state from an equally wrong Young Earth Baptist. Like him, you have yet to demonstrate any understanding.
I've been interested in this since back when NLP couldn't understand the word "not", and back when "I write AI" implicitly meant "for a computer game".