* The connectionists, aka the cargo-culters - "if we just tweak the
back-propogation, it'll start thinking!" These people have put no real
thought into a definition of intelligence, other than to characterize
it as associative and fuzzy (how we're supposed to do that on a
discrete computer, I can't fathom).
* The logicians, whose hobby is attaching wings to pigs in the hope
that they will fly. These people presume that intelligence is just a
matter of logical deduction, and that logic is the right level on which
to describe how intelligence operates. They have all the high-level
philosophical problems of AI defined and solved, but so far their
computers have not locked them outside in Jupiter orbit, leading some
to migrate to the third camp...
* The Searlites, who believe it can't be done but are still publishing
papers for God-knows-what-reason.
* And finally, there's the people doing stuff that isn't AI, namely
anything that's a domain-specific system or isn't designed to produce
domain-general intelligence. This includes the evolutionary and genetic
algorithms people, the constraint solvers, and probably anything else
that doesn't fit in categories 1-3 (and a lot of stuff that does too;
the connectionists seem awfully fond of making a neural net that does X
and only X and then publishing a paper that says "neural nets can do
X!"). There is a lot of interesting stuff in this category, but they
should go find their own field. If your program can solve a problem
reliably much better than a human can, it's not because it's smart,
it's because you've written a better domain-specific algorithm than our
own general-purpose reasoning, and it's a big clue that you're not
doing AI at all.

Spread throughout all of these camps are the semiotics people and their
deconstructivist / postmodernist associates, who are busy destroying
real intelligence in humans via the educational system.

There, that should offend just about everybody.

If you want to know why AI is not getting anywhere, read Feynman's
famous address on Cargo Cult Science (
http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html ) and compare
to the state of the field. No wonder!