Hmm, I think we're misunderstanding each other. Is your view that RL and CNN have been or can be applied to create a machine you'd call intelligent right now?
My original comment was about how people shift the goal posts about what AI is. My opinion is that in the same way you'd struggle to call a human intelligent if literally all they could do was play genius level Go, most people would not call a computer program intelligent if all it could do was play Go.
If the machine could play many other games and adapt to games it hasn't seen before that's more convincing, but you would expect an intelligent machine to be able to adapt to more varied tasks as well (e.g. having conversations, writing stories, doing maths, recognising objects). Right now, we have AIs that are genius level at one task that cannot even attempt other tasks e.g. genius level at Chess or even a whole category of games but couldn't have a basic conversation.
> How will not applying the same technique/algorithm to lots of domains disqualify from being intelligent? RL and CNNs are being applied in many domains today. Is the complexity of the algorithm is what you're disagreeing with?
I'd say it's not important if it's one algorithm, many algorithms, simple algorithms or complex algorithms, just that it's a single general purpose concrete implementation that is capable of doing many varied tasks and learning.
> The human brain (if you strip out stuff that does not pertain to intelligence) can be seen as one super complex machine which can be encoded. We just don't know all the algorithm/code yet.
Yeah, I don't think there's anything magical about the brain that a computer couldn't replicate in some form.