If you want my opinion, far from one another. It's an accident of history that logic, a branch of mathematics, was lumped together with the fuzzy, hardly scientific goals of the AI project. It's all the fault of McCarthy, of course.

Oh, sure, McCarthy is one of my science heroes. But it is because of him that reserach that firmly belonged to mathematics and computer science in the broad sense, particularly the research on automated theorem proving, the natural continuation of the work of Gödel, Church and Turing, was lumbered with the goal of somehow showing that it can compute intelligence.

I mean, why is the ability to prove sentences in a formal languages a necessary requirement for intelligence? As far as I can tell, most humans do fine without it and so do basically all non-human animals that have anything remotely recognisable as intelligence.

Why is the ability to play chess a prerequisite of intelligence, for that matter, or the ability to predict protein structure? All those are typical tasks of AI as a field of research, because they happen to be "things that one can do with computers", i.e. computable computations. But what do they have to do with intelligence? What the hell even is intelligence? Turing gave us a model of computing machines and if one assumes that intelligence is a computable function, then it makes sense to try and compute it with a machine, but isn't that assumption the first thing we should test, before jumping right in and doing all the things we'd do if we knew it for sure to be true? And if it was true, wouldn't we have seen some progress towards that goal, after 70 years of study?

I'm speaking in this as someone who entered AI research because of my interest in logic programming and automated theorem proving, and mathematical logic in general. I am not interested in creating "AIs" one bit and yet, here I am, studying for a PhD in what is traditionally an AI subject. That's just dumb. Logic should have stayed where it belongs, in mathematics.

But... McCarthy was Church's student, so it was natural for him to set down the foundations of the field to the seminal work of his advisor, and others like him. Kind of like he was so keen on chess as an AI task- because he liked to play chess.

At least McCarthy's personal preferences did help to build a foundation of AI on theory, like I say in my comment above, so, for a while at least, it could have been less fuzzy and throw-stuff-at-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks-y than (most of) it is currently.