I dont see any single case of that. Rather in every case the goal posts were moved.
Can a computer play chess? No.
They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one.
That was never the challenge. The challenge was having them play chess; ie., no tricks, no shortcuts. Really evaluate the present board state, and actually choose a move.
And likewise everything else. A rock beats a child at finding the path to the bottom of a hill.
A rock "outperforms" the child. The challenge was never, literally, getting to the bottom of the hill: that's dumb. The challenge was matching the child's ability to do that anywhere via exploration, curiosity, planning, coordination, and everything else.
If you reduce intelligence to merely completing a highly specific task then there is always a shortcut, which uses no intelligence, to solving that task. The ability to build tools which use these shortcuts was never in doubt: we have done that for millenia.
Can a computer play chess? No.
They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one.
That was never the challenge. The challenge was having them play chess; ie., no tricks, no shortcuts. Really evaluate the present board state, and actually choose a move.
And likewise everything else. A rock beats a child at finding the path to the bottom of a hill.
A rock "outperforms" the child. The challenge was never, literally, getting to the bottom of the hill: that's dumb. The challenge was matching the child's ability to do that anywhere via exploration, curiosity, planning, coordination, and everything else.
If you reduce intelligence to merely completing a highly specific task then there is always a shortcut, which uses no intelligence, to solving that task. The ability to build tools which use these shortcuts was never in doubt: we have done that for millenia.