Artificial Intelligence may be controversial, but the limitations of computers have been spelled out explicitly for at least 70 years, if not thousands.<p>

So in what sense do we take the term Artificial Intelligence? Well, we do not take it in the frame of reference that the reader may be accustomed to. The fact is that we interpret it very differently than is standardly interpretted. I am not saying this to distinguish myself, but only because if I didn't I would be blamed later because they would say, "Oh, well that's not what everybody thinks is Artificial Intelligence".

But so far in this paper we haven't defined it with even one axiom. And yet, I still cannot be sure that anyone reading this really understands that, as far as we've defined it thus far in this paper, it is not conclusively disprovable that Artificial Intelligence is not Mineral Spirits, that it is not a position in government, or that it is not a shade of blue.

Let's, for starter's look at a few hypothetical definitions of AI.

HYPO1) AI is a form of cat wrench.

Well, what does this mean. What is a "cat wrench"? Well obviously the syntactic term "cat wrench" appears to be something in our taxonomy. It says 'AI "is a form of"' seems to imply that the class of "cat wrench" subsumes "AI". But obviously none of these has been defined sufficiently.

Let us also switch now from refering to "AI" but let us restrict it further to "weak weak AI".

HYPO2) "WWAI" is a major geopolitical event in the first part of the 20th century.

All I am doing is trying to make the point here that any term is subject to its definitions. I am trying to clear the previously held definitions of WWAI for numerous reasons. It is because our present definition of WWAI is motivated by a set of assumptions which may be taken without much hesitation, and then a string of formal inferences which proves conclusively that "Any computing device whatsoever is a WWAI."

A first objection is that this definition is overly broad. But realize that we are operating in a <b>more Socratic way than most people are accustomed to in daily usage of language<b>. It is altogether fitting and proper that we use our language differently in this case. IF we were not to make some different usage out of the language, we would have difficulty in making as much progress.

Socraties is a model of how we ought to look at things. Because Socraties said, and this is my point in everything I have said up to now, that before we ask questions about a thing, we must ask the question "what is the essence of this thing?" So, that is what I am asking, what is the essence of "WWAI". I can be relatively sure that since, obviously, "WWAI" is not a term that anyone has used before, that no one knows anything about it, and therefore must be willing to take note of my definitions.

Socraties would often take a conventional interpretation, and apply a sequence of inferences, known as a proof, to disprove that conventional interpretation.

So without further adieu I shall spell out all the assumptions and the inference which leads to WWAI.

Assumption 1: