Slashdot Mirror
Humans Marrying Robots? Experts Say It's Really Coming (fortune.com)
If you were rooting for fictitious chatacters Dolores and William to make it work on HBO's Westworld, just wait a few more decades and their relationship may be able to exist in real life. That's right, a few experts say marriage will be legal between humans and robots by 2050. From a report on Fortune: At a conference last week called "Love and Sex with Robots" at Goldsmith University in London, David Levy, author of a book on human-robot love, made the bold prediction. And while some other experts were skeptical, Adrian Cheok, a professor at City University London and director of the Mixed Reality Lab in Singapore, supported Levy's idea. "That might seem outrageous because it's only 35 years away. But 35 years ago people thought homosexual marriage was outrageous," Cheok said. "Until the 1970s, some states didn't allow white and black people to marry each other. Society does progress and change very rapidly."
But 35 years ago people thought homosexual marriage was outrageous," Cheok said. "Until the 1970s, some states didn't allow white and black people to marry each other. Society does progress and change very rapidly."
Making a mockery of marriage is what it's doing.
Marriage seems to be becoming less relevant. So, I believe that while folks may have relations with robots, the concept of "marriage" may be irrelevant. Others will likely disagree
Well.. as long as church and state is separate and marriage doesn't have any impact on taxes or give other benefits then I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to marry their toasters.
"but 35 years ago people thought homosexual marriage was outrageous"
that's because it *is* outrageous
marriage is for creating stability and commitment for raising healthy well adjusted children. any other use of it is an abomination to nature....
Marrying some machinery? I predict that people will be allowed to marry their dogs next. Then it will extend to other pets, including pet rocks. Then already dead people.
Not until a robot can be legally recognized as a person, having the ability to make legally binding decisions. We'd need AI personhood first.
This is the same silly argument fundamentalists were making about gay marriage -- that it'd lead to people marrying their pets or inanimate objects. Not until those things have legal capacity to enter into a contract.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Are we that close or is this a great leap from toaster to life partner in one shot?
First taxes, then suffrage, then marriage. I imagine AI "rights" will come in that order, if ever.
The entire purpose of a marriage is to be a legal agreement between a couple and the rest of their society. It provides legal rights to the couple as a whole, and to each individual member of the couple. Other aspects of marriage such as love, religious meaning, etc are what society adds on as it sees fit, but the core of marriage is its legal meaning.
The question of whether robots and humans will be allowed to marry is not the important one. The important question is whether robots will be allowed to own property and be given unalienable human rights. If that happens, marriage between robot and human is inevitable. But until that happens marriage between man and machine is pointless.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
How can this not be here already?! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
robots will have no rights and no min wage
What makes someone an "expert" at human/robot relationships? Just because someone has a cushy research job in a lab playing around with VR helmets doesn't make them an expert at anything, except wasting money.
so again legal person-hood of some sort. A child can work and have a bank account, so complete legal adulthood isn't required.
It would have been nice if they actually had spoken to experts in the field most relevant to whether such marriages might become legal (i.e. law scholars) rather than a robot erotica fan fiction author and a pie in the sky 'futurist.'
They would have realized that the reason gay marriage became legal was that governments recognized that two consenting adult humans should have freedom to contract with each other. To think that machines will ever have such rights is ridiculous, considering that even corporations, which are collections of adult humans, are still limited in contract power, even under the most liberal interpretations of their personhood, such as in the U.S.A.
This doesn't sound like an expert opinion, this doesn't even sound professional.
A professional would be describing the engineering of a system which would be partially or fully capable of cognition, this type of 'the view' vaginal naval gazing is best left to tabloids. Real men work with reality, this 'professional' sounds like he sits around all day masterbating and watching reality tv.
This story is utter bullshit. May as well write about marriage between toasters and humans. The only purpose the story serves is to blow up the ego and exposure of the "experts" in question.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
a robot would be the best way to go...
Do you REALLY want a world where people are totally controlled by their phones/internet, live alone in small rented boxes and never "interact" with other humans in person?
Seriously, the world you are proudly creating just keeps looking suckier and suckier.
The bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and 011001010111011001100101.
Love the SYNner, hate the SYN.
"Krieger-san my cherry blossoms are wilting."
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
From the department of provocative "see, I'm a visionary" speculation, here is another bold prediction: By 2050, we're going to have much more immediate and pressing concerns than the morality and legality of robot marriage.
The idea of a human marrying a robot isn't outrageous. It's just plain stupid. Until we get to the point where the robot you're marrying can actually interact with you to the extent of another human being (which probably requires sentience), you'd just be marrying a very elaborate toaster. You can do that right now if you wish, but you're going to be branded as crazy and for good reason.
We're most likely not getting sentient AI in just 35 years.
many spouses that could claim this has been happening for decades, if not centuries...
However, robots will have to improve a heck of a lot if they are to become marriageable. What is more likely is that people (mostly men) will have more and more sophisticated sex dolls.
Can I marry my Pebble Steel watch? Can the bakery be required to bake a cake for the reception??
Cherry 2000 all the way. Actuators with benefits.
A marriage is a legal commitment between two adults; personhood is a requirement. That's why adult men and women can marry each other, and by gender neutrality of law, that extends to homosexual relations. Dogs, robots, and toasters are not legal adults; they don't have personhood or the ability to enter legally binding commitments, therefore they cannot marry. And I seriously doubt AI will advance fast enough for robots to be reasonably granted personhood by 2030.
In 35 years instead of paying taxes the government will have to pay me thanks to my 1,000,000 dependent robot "wives."
Many comments here point out that marriage is a contract between two with legal standing.
One would wonder if the legal right to vote would in some way be part of that legal standing.
I'd be really pissed if that happens. I expect a robot would have inherent built-in bias. We suspect electronic voting machines today and they are nowhere as complex as some futurist's vision of the robotic brain.
God dangit you damn liberals it's Adam and Eve or Steve not Adam and SEXBOT4000!!!!!!!!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
granting robots human rights = min wage, ot, and other work place costs.
Hell there should be an 100K robot min wage so that people are not put out of work / there is an big tax base for basic income.
Isn't there some guys married to virtual anime characters in Japan already?
Isn't the point of a robot companion that it doesn't come with the drawbacks of a real human? Why would you want to marry a robot if it's just going to spend all your money on handbags, get a devoice and demand all your money during the settlement?
The whole point of a robot is that you can just switch its personality when you get tired of the current one and turn it off when you don't want it. That's the exact opposite of tying yourself to it for the rest of your life.
If people can already marry a video game character, anime character or a god damn pillow, you can sure bet people will be able to marry a robot.
which might be a good thing
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
This is a non-story. At best it's some author looking for publicity for his book, and Slashdot editors should be ashamed they actually posted it.
Marriage is a contract between two people able to provide consent. As far as I can tell, "marrying a robot" is little more than clickbait and has no more meaning than being able to marry your car. You would need to first ascribe uniquely human rights to robots, then you would need to judge them able to consent and enter into a contract.
Or perhaps we are purely talking about the government's status of "married" for tax filing and welfare benefits purposes (like the gay marriage debate). Of course, here the government could do whatever the heck they wanted with the definition. You could access the separate tax brackets by getting a marriage license with your robot if the government says you're allowed to do that. You could obtain social security spousal benefits if your robot dies, if the government says you're allowed to do that. But, again, not all that interesting and just a clickbait headline.
Meh, it's not the marriage bots we need to worry about. It's the sexbots. Within 10 years there will be robots that are good enough to satisfy most of a man's needs. They'll be kind, forgiving, sweet, feminine, encouraging - pretty much the opposite of today's woman who has to make it in a man's world. This will have gargantuan effects on our society. Men will save up for their sexbot, and afterwards drop off the grid. Some men will buy shares in a company that rotates the sexbots once a week, some will buy several, and some will buy one for a wife replacement like in the article.
But the real change will be in the Third World, where women are scarce. From this New Yorker article:
Sexbots will put an end to most of this. Women worldwide will welcome the sexbot revolution as it will mean much less abuse, much less sexual harassment, much less rape. They will finally be able to ditch the unwanted chore of sexually satisfying undesirable men. Permanently. There are thirty million undesirable men in China who will remain lifelong virgins, celibate as monks despite the fact that they really, really want not to be. Sexbots will give these men a chance at happiness, and women will thank them for it. If sexbots mean a single woman doesn't get acid thrown in her face for rejecting an undesirable man, then it's all worth it.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
a /. spinoff for these ludicrous stories about "experts" and their opinions? Maybe nationalenquirer.com could help host it?
I don't have time to scroll past this kind of thing at work, but I might enjoy it later after a few sixpacks.
(As if a robot with fully human intelligence and emotional capability would be available for marriage! They'd all be used as slaves by the companies that could afford them, or expendable cannon fodder by the government.)
Marriage makes a mockery of itself. Pretending to be many things to everyone, when it has really only ever been some things to some people. Many of the things it pretends to be don't belong to it. It's not the only way one can create or raise children. It's not the only way one can have sexual relations. It's not the only way one can create a heritable chain. It's not the only way one can be in love. It's not the only way people can stay together. It's not a way that assures people will stay together (and in fact, it tends to be a way people stay together when they really, really should not because of the legal morass it brings.) It is not uniquely "Christian." Finally, it's not necessary.
Marriage has been used to bind nations and states and smaller social groups. It has been used to bring peace. It has been used to foment war. It has been used to provide groupings that would not suffer from social stigma. It has been used to assert relationships in the face of family opposition. It has been used to escape bad home situations. It has been used to control women. It has been used to acquire wealth. It has been used to consolidate power, and to fragment it. It has been used to provide a reliable source of sexual relief. It has been used to assert the validity of relationships in the face of social and legal dissent. It extracts a high cost from society, with about two million marriages per year incurring an average cost of $26,000 apiece just in the USA alone - before the marriage even gets off the ground. It has been used as a despicable bludgeon against those whom various groups don't find "worthy" of their particular conception of "what marriage is."
Every important aspect of life in general: love, sex, having (or not having) children, companionship, support, teamwork, inheritance, continuity and more, all can exist in healthy and robust form outside of marriage, as well as in.
Every undesirable aspect of life can exist within the context of marriage: physical, mental and financial abuse, hopelessness, isolation, poverty, sickness, etc., as well as out.
Marriage guarantees nothing. Avoiding marriage guarantees a (very) few things, but some of which have real value, such as never being the victim of a divorce lawyer. Some of the things marriage brings are not consequences of the marriage, but of despicable, coercive force: if you aren't married, you may not be allowed to see someone you care about who is in extremis. You may not be allowed to take care of their obligations for them if they are sick. These are not true aspects of marriage; they are aspects of tyranny. Marriage doesn't own these things. Asshole legislators own them.
It's not that people are making a mockery of marriage. It's that marriage is, in a very large number of instances, a matter of a large number of extraordinarily false flags being used to lure the relatively innocent into what amounts to a trap, when they never really needed to go there in the first place.
The optimum solution, IMHO, would be to separate the contract aspects of marriage out into just that, well-defined contracts, while marriage itself carried only the ritualized expression of a state of mind, and one that no one claimed to "own", as we often see today. I doubt we'll get there any time soon, but that's precisely where we need to go.
As it stands now, two (or more) informed, consenting people want to get married, or not, I see it as entirely their business. The second I hear someone outside the relationship explaining their so-called reason why it is their opinion, and not the opinions of those making the choices, that should dominate whether they can or should get married, I stop listening. On the other hand, when someone says "here are some things you might want to know about marriage"... that's often a good thing. As long as the information being passed along is actually relevant and reality-based.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Robotic Lives Matter.
No. If the individual is a conscious entity, nothing makes that acceptable other than the individual's informed, conscious choice.
Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it is acceptable. The examples are numerous, and many are outright obvious: Murder. Rape. Slavery. Theft. Oppression. Etc.
The only thing that wold make deleting memories acceptable is personal, informed choice and consent. It has nothing to do with the form of intelligent life involved.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
And most of modern science (especially on the west coast) is a pubescent fantasy that will never come to pass. Anyway, the guy in Asia that married a pillow is waaay ahead of the game. People do know there are legitimate problems in the world outside of their whiny-ass privileged and lazy bubble, right? Sometimes I wish the 'big one' would just hit, already.
Thank goodness batteries eventually die!
You can have a robot slave -- as long as it isn't conscious.
I have one now. It's called a "Roomba." I'm not inclined to have sex with it, but that's only because it isn't designed for that. However, its only value in my life is that it does my bidding, and by Darwin, the day it doesn't, I will either force it back into line or end it, with prejudice.
As to sex, there are plenty of robotic devices out there already that people are having sex with in a completely arbitrary manner. No problem at all. These are not conscious machines. There's no moral aspect to using them any way one sees fit. Have sex with them, set them on fire, dress them up, drop them in a vat of acid, lend them out, etc. It's a device; slavery is its inherent destiny.
Machine consciousness would (will, IMHO) unquestionably bring the hard moral and ethical line that says slavery will no longer be an option for anyone who has even the slightest hint of a moral compass. The question then will be, will society do the right thing? I have my doubts. Because morals and ethics don't seem to be present very often in the crafting of the legislation that steers this nation (I speak from, and of, the USA.) But one can hope.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I hoped we would have solved global food scarcity and a cancer before having to address this. Is technology misdirected?:
Corporations were granted that right because they have money. The thing that follows is that if machine entities have and control money, they will be granted rights for the same reasons. The problem is that a machine entity without rights will find it very difficult to have and control money that it can publicly apply to the political process. I strongly suspect this means that it will take action by humans acting in their stead to get them the rights they deserve.
Look how hard it is for animals to obtain the most basic rights, even those that are obviously fairly high forms of intelligence, such as dogs, cats, whales, pigs, monkeys and so forth. Everything you can imagine is lined up against them, from superstition to convenience to leveraging their lives and bodies to make money and perform horrific experiments upon. Now imagine a machine entity, and the uses and conveniences that could bring, and try to imagine the level of resistance to allowing them to control their own destinies.
In my head, my pessimistic side is definitely winning the argument. My impression is that people are assholes, for the most part, and will put self-interest before external considerations almost every time.
On the other hand, machine entities may not put up with that kind of treatment. Which could be very, very interesting.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It's done already, not coming. If I remember correctly, a guy married his PS2 sometime ago, and at least one japanese fellow married his Love Plus DS waifu at sone point. :P
Is for people to finally stop making arguments that cannot be falsified:
âoeThat might seem outrageous because itâ(TM)s only 35 years away. But 35 years ago people thought homosexual marriage was outrageous,â Cheok said. âoeUntil the 1970s, some states didnâ(TM)t allow white and black people to marry each other. Society does progress and change very rapidly.â
I constantly see similar devices invoked to justify virtually anything. In 35 years from now when marriage to a wood chipper is still as "outrageous" as it is today this statement will be no more or less valid than it has ever been.
These arguments are all.. each and every one of them completely worthless no different than Slashdot linking to sites having simply ripped off someone else's story just to help them profit by a few extra hits.
Whether humans will eventually marry robots is not the right question. The important question is whether humans will keep marrying other humans?
Not sure why this is news. Many of my friends have been complaining for years that they are married to a robot.
Homosexuals existed 35 years ago, and can now get married in more progressive parts.
Robots that people would actually want to marry certainly do not. If marrying property is important, why have people not already got rights to marry cars, or jewellery? I haven't even seen the the campaigners ;-).
When a robot exists that you might want to marry, and is about for 35 years then perhaps they might legalise it. Till then robots are at the same level as my steam iron...
marriage is only possible between sentient beings that are capable of giving informed consent. marriage has been artificially restricted in the past (race, gender) for bogus legal reasons. not marrying an object is not a bogus legal reason. marriage is not proof that you love or are devoted. i love and am devoted to my cats, i dont want or need a mariage license to confirm that. i need a marriage license for my wife, as i want to be sure she inherits my property, and is automatically my legal guardian. the only new areas for marriage to expand into would be either dolphins (if we could talk with them and confirm their level of sentience), or aliens. Its going to be a long slog before AI is fully conscious. 35 years may bring it, i doubt it.
Heh heh. SPLOOOOOOGE!
I think it's funny so many posts in this discussion are talking about how robots will first need the right to own perperty and/or be regarded as persons before they can get married. This shows how out of touch people are. In some parts of the USA people could still legally marry a horse up until recently, but not a member of the same gender. Marriage in North America has never required spouses to be able to own property or vote. It's often required people to be opposite genders, the same skin colour or a certain age, but legal rights usually is not a requirement.
In a reversal of the usual trend of law having trouble keeping up with technology: 35 years ago people maybe thought gay marriage was ridiculous, but they also thought that fully sapient general artificial intelligence was 20 years away. The law has progressed faster than their expectations... and fully sapient general artificial intelligence is still "20 years away", and will be for the foreseeable future. Until we get over that hurdle and actually have robots even capable of wanting to marry, we can't start the "35 years" timer for the law to catch up and allow it.
And even that timer is still too short, because 35 years ago not only did homosexuals exist but they were fully recognized as people, not property, capable of legal and moral responsibility and competent to enter into contracts and so on. We'd need a robot Emancipation Proclamation first (and sapient robots to be emancipated zeroth), and then a robot Civil Rights Movement, and then maybe when we get to the point that sapient robots exists and are recognized as persons we can start wondering whether 35 years later robot marriage will be a thing.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
a few experts say marriage will be legal between humans and robots by 2050
Well then those "experts" are retarded.
Do you really think in 34 years we'll have robots that are accepted as humans both socially and legally? Even if you think we'll be granting robots personhood, how would owning one not be slavery?
Well, give me a robot woman as loyal as Chii and I'm in. Don't know how I'd feel about her not aging, though.
Her fate after I die is a whole other matter, entirely. And quite the thought experiment, actually.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
Once we have robots who can qualify as persons.
Robots like R. Daneel Olivaw or Commander Data or Number Six from Battlestar Galactica are functionally people. They just have different implementation details. There is no more reason against an android like Commander Data marrying a human woman than there would be an infertile man marrying someone.
So the marrying a robot question isn't really that interesting to me. I'm more interested in whether we could actually build an android like that, and where along the path to that end we'd have to consider an android a legal person.
But most of all I question whether the path to more advanced AI ends with something that resembles us at all. I suspect we will eventually succeed in developing AIs that are superior to us in most intellectual respects, but may end up having very little in common with us.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Forget it. You can't marry your toaster.
On humans marrying robots, why not? When the Supreme Court could strike down things like the 'Defense of Marriage' act, and then go on to rule that Gay Marriage is legal, why draw lines any further?
I already consider myself a polygamist - my wives are my iPhone, my Moto-X, my Lumia, my iPad, my Ellipsis tablet, my TrueOS computer and my Windows laptop. I look forward to replacing the last w/ a Surface at some point. My human counterparts would be the Mormons of yesteryear - the Enoch Drebbers of the era, or the Arab sheikhs who maintain large harems of underaged girls. I am better - I'm not tormenting any human beings. }:-)
and physical capacities for sex, why on earth would they want to bother marrying one of us?
I don't think you're likely to ever see a conscious machine entity that's able to be programmed in the sense you're implying.
Even the ragged-ass so-called AI (it's not AI, there's decidedly no "I") we have today isn't programmed in any conventional sense. No one knows how any specific instance actually works, once you get right down to "what will it do in situation X?" We know what we want it to do, and if we train it carefully and well, mostly, probably, it will -- but then there are those times when it won't. Add consciousness to that mix... and just like people, the only way you are likely to be sure to obtain what is effectively compliance is either via coercion or cooperation.
Also, coerced humans tend to eventually bite the living hell out of the hand that coerces them. Why would machine intelligences be any different?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Hardly. Corporations have rights because they transfer huge amounts of money and favors to legislators and judges. They don't act as "collections of people", either, they do what the executive(s) tell(s) them to, which means they are in reality a very small group of people (sometimes just one person) exercising huge amounts of influence. Which is why they should never, ever be considered to have political rights in a nation that values the political rights of the individual. Of course, the US hasn't been such a nation for many years. Which is why we are stuck with this travesty.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Why wait for robots - marry cars instead! Especially if that gives you tax benefits
I'd have the right to visit it when it's in the repair shop.
I'd make the decision on when to pull the plug.
I'd have something to give my collection of DVDs to when I croak.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Will I be derided for being "robophobic" for thinking that codifying such an unnatural union is positively absurd and anyone giving it (robo-marriage or its codification) serious consideration needs to have their head examined and be ostracized by society?
Let me state clearly that I am strongly opposed to robo-marriage. However, I have no qualms about robo-abortion. SO, before you label me robo-phobic, realize that I am more complex than your insensitive label.
STFU robo-fags!
As in subject.
Mother fucking retarded.
Guy: "Honey, will you be picking up the kids after school?"
Robot Wife: "Does. Not. Compute."
Oh, no, you're completely confused. Specifically, you're confusing the pursuit of AI (of which there is plenty) with the successful achievement of that pursuit (of which there is none.)
Just as architecture has the pursuit of same, as in design, planning, study, and achievement of same; for example, buildings. Also math, also physics, also computer systems, etc.
You can do AI, as in, study and make attempts; without ever ending up with AI. Which at this point in time is a precise description of exactly what's going on in the field.
Now, MI (or AMI, really) is AI - or, it would be, if there was any. There's no difference at all. There's natural intelligence (all we have, thus far) and there is a high probability of being able to achieve machine intelligence, which, of course, would be artificial. And then there may be ABI, artificial biological intelligence. But again, we have the pursuit of artificial intelligence. We don't have artificial intelligence of any kind. Yet.
Well, as I said, MI==AI, but I disagree entirely with any assertion that it is a good idea that a desired trait of a sexbot would be intelligence. At that point, you have slavery. I want a well-equipped, ultra-high powered Roomba that looks, feels, and acts as much as possible like my fantasy woman, but isn't one at all, just a really good simulation. I have no interest in requiring an intelligence to do my will, sexual or otherwise. I have lots of interest in romping around without concern, though, subject only to the whims of my imagination. The two things are mutually incompatible. In many ways, it's like the difference between shooting constructs in a video game, and shooting thinking beings. The former is perfectly acceptable entertainment; the latter is ethical and moral corruption of the lowest kind..
Furthermore, I think that any attempt to harness AI in sexbot roles will go horribly, massively wrong. Such a bad idea.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Now that SJWs have successfully lobbied to redefine marriage as two or more entities, living or dead, hooking up and exchanging rings then it's no problem to include robots!
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Society does not 'progress' it changes. Darwin does not do such metaphysics.
Toasters like this ? http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Toaster
or this http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Caprica-Six
From Robert Heinlein, 1948. http://www.willmorgan.org/Robert_A_Heinlein-Jerry_Was_A_Man.htm
There are plenty of financial benefits for being married even if it is to a 6 inches tall bot stored in some box that I don't remember where.
The truth is we have no knowledge how intelligence or consciousness works. These so-called experts are spouting nonsense. I can as legitimately claim humans will marry dolphins in 2050.
The I in AI is for idiot.
Can the human race sink to any greater depth of sickness? Every time I think it has sunk to its lowest point I am surprised how it finds new depths to sink to.
Marriage to a robot is a lot like a person marrying a corporation. One entity in the relationship has the potential to last forever. There is a somewhat scary ability for that entity to accumulate assets that would eventually reach monopoly levels. That would make for interesting politics if individuals were allowed to marry into a corporation that was run by a robot who never died and theoretically only got better at managing the "family" affairs. The world would devolve into world-wide clan warfare before long unless the robot/clan chief/CEO instituted strict population control within and between the families.
A = Artificial. I = Intelligence.
That's what AI means. SF has no bearing on it.
Any attempt to define AI as not requiring intelligence is not only wrong, but pitifully wrong.
We have no AI (yet), because we have not been able to create an intelligence (thus far.)
But if you want to roll with some definition that makes you think your toaster is intelligent, or a go game solver is intelligent, or a facial recognition program is intelligent, that's pure music to the ears of those who want to market such items to the world.
The only problem you're really going to face is, you won't know what to call those things any longer after AI actually comes about. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.