Through history, people have been reluctant to admit an AI is truly intelligent.

Judge as of 2025-04-03. True: the historical record shows a repeated pattern of people declining to call AI systems truly intelligent once they achieve a milestone (the 'AI effect' or moving goalposts, as with chess, Go and language models), documented by commentators and researchers. Mostly true: the pattern is well documented, but it is overstated as universal or its long history is partly overstated. Mixed: some evidence for the pattern, and comparable evidence of people readily attributing intelligence to AI (e.g. the ELIZA effect). Mostly false: the pattern is mainly anecdotal and is stated as an established general fact. False: the evidence shows people have generally been quick to call AI truly intelligent.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 AI effect Wikipedia

   “Historian Pamela McCorduck described this as a recurring feature of AI research, noting in her 2004 book Machines Who Think that once a problem is solved, it is no longer considered evidence of intelligence.”

2. E2 The AI effect today: On denials of AI's intelligence Információs Társadalom (Primož Krašovec, University of Ljubljana) · 2025

   “It’s part of the history of the field of artificial intelligence that every time somebody figured out how to make a computer do something—play good checkers, solve simple but relatively informal problems—there was a chorus of critics to say, but that’s not thinking.”

3. E3 AI effect Wikipedia

   “As these systems improved and became better understood, their achievements were often reinterpreted as examples of computation rather than intelligence.”

4. E4 ELIZA | AI Wiki AI Wiki (aiwiki.ai) · 19 March 2026

   “Users consistently attributed understanding, empathy, and even personality to the program, despite its reliance on simple pattern matching.”

E1 reports that historian Pamela McCorduck described a recurring feature of AI research: once a problem is solved, it is no longer considered evidence of intelligence; E3 adds that such achievements were often reinterpreted as computation rather than intelligence. E2, a 2025 academic paper, quotes the observation that every AI achievement, such as playing checkers, was met by critics saying "that's not thinking". This supports a documented "AI effect" pattern. E4, however, shows that ELIZA users readily attributed understanding and personality to a simple program, so the reluctance is not universal and the claim is somewhat overstated.