Aff’s AI tax can’t solve – internal government structures can’t even agree on a definition and never have been able to.

First, let's take a look at earlier attempts to set out the nature of AI. The first definition is found in a proposal written by Claude Shannon, Marvin Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester and John McCarthy in 1955: For the present purpose the artificial intelligence problem is taken to be that of making a machine behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were so behaving. It was a proposal for a summer project - they couldn't know their definition would endure for decades. Yet here is Richard Bellman - who created the Bellman equation, one of the foundational concepts in reinforcement learning - defining AI in 1978: [AI is the computerisation of] activities that we associate with human thinking. We get something similar from Ray Kurzweil [1]. Kurzweil defined AI in 1990 as the: [The computerisation of] functions that require intelligence when performed by people. All three definitions are saying the same thing: AI is computerised human intelligence. This is unscientific. The scientific field of 'human intelligence' doesn't exist, because there is nothing uniquely human about intelligence. The field of cognitive neuroscience studies intelligence across the animal kingdom. Elephants scream and weep when one dies. They cover the body in branches and spend days quietly standing over it. They visit the graves of their friends many years after they died. In short, they mourn. If I created a robot that did everything an elephant can do, I would be doing artificial intelligence research. Let's accept that the early AI researchers were products of their times. Nobody would think like this now though, right? Then why did the  define AI like this in 2018? 'Technologies with the ability to perform tasks that would otherwise require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, and language translation.' The UK government provided an even more wrong-headed definition of AI in 2019, this time from the : 'AI can be defined as the use of digital technology to create systems capable of performing tasks commonly thought to require intelligence.' What happens if people commonly think playing the game of checkers requires intelligence but then stop commonly thinking it? Would checkers-playing computers stop being AI and start being something else instead? The definition of scientific concepts, say atomic nuclei or microscopes,  don't normally depend on what people commonly think.