I think this is an unfair assessment. The industry talks of AI, not AGI. It's not Microsoft's fault that the public thinks of Terminator robots when hearing "AI", nor that science-fiction stories have been written a 100 years ago.
The general public does not set budgets for AI research.
AI research benefits from faster processors, more memory and more advanced algorithms. Only philosophers (the domain of AGI is philosophy, not so much engineering or maths) are uncomfortable with those details.
Please refer to AGI, if you are talking of the hypothetical strong AI. The current textbook definition is alright.
(And yeah, the hype around AI is palpable and annoying. That's why many researchers called their work "cognitive science", "machine learning", "optimization", "logic" or "applied maths" and avoided "AI". Because else, they'd have to argue semantics, or defend why they haven't build an artificial God yet...)
The general public does not set budgets for AI research.
AI research benefits from faster processors, more memory and more advanced algorithms. Only philosophers (the domain of AGI is philosophy, not so much engineering or maths) are uncomfortable with those details.
Please refer to AGI, if you are talking of the hypothetical strong AI. The current textbook definition is alright.
(And yeah, the hype around AI is palpable and annoying. That's why many researchers called their work "cognitive science", "machine learning", "optimization", "logic" or "applied maths" and avoided "AI". Because else, they'd have to argue semantics, or defend why they haven't build an artificial God yet...)