Can humans think under that definition? I think it’s highly likely we can’t.

Are humans always able to come up with anything new? If so where does this ability originate. How would someone identify that?

I think this definition of thought is too limited and not how we use the word intuitively.

Btw I didn’t down vote you.

Your reply begs the question which definition of AI you are using.

The above is from Russells and Norvigs “Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach” 3rd edition.

I would argue that from these 8 definitions 6 apply to modern deep learning stuff. Only the category titled “Thinking Humanly” would agree with you but I personally think that these seem to be self defeating, i.e. defining AI in a way that is so dependent on humans that a machine never could have AI, which would make the word meaningless.

What algorithm are you referring to?

The fundamental idea to use matrix multiplication plus a non linear function, the idea of deep learning i.e. back propagating derivatives and the idea of gradient descent in general, may not have changed but the actual algorithms sure have.

For example, the transformer architecture (that is utilized by most modern models) based on multi headed self attention, optimizers like adamw, the whole idea of diffusion for image generation are I would say quite disruptive.

Another point is that generative ai was always belittled in the research community, until like 2015 (subjective feeling would need meta study to confirm). The focus was mostly on classification something not much talked about today in comparison.

In assessing risk assume everyone is a bumbling idiot. For we all have moments of great stupidity.

There is definitely a risk in changing it. Many automation systems that assume there is a master branch needed to be changed. Something that’s trivial yes but changing a perfectly running system is always a potential risk.

Also stuff like tutorials and documentation become outdated.