@failures art,
Quote:Dreyfus' opinion was fairly accurate, but it was based on the 1960's view of reverse engineering the human mind to create AI. This approach has been long replaced by those making break-throughs in AI.
No way. Dreyfus was mocked and ridiculed when he first came out with his critique of AI, everyone thought his objections were preposterous. But it has been borne out by everything that happened subsequently, over the course of nearly four decades of research. Artificial intelligence (and artificial life, for that matter) are
scientific fantasies. There are plenty of vital and urgent things that science needs to work on other than such useless vanity projects. Like stopping the planet from cooking, for a start.
There is something that all of the people who treat science as a religion need to understand. The nature of the atom is still a mystery. Yet the atom is supposed to be the most fundamental and basic thing in the universe. We have had to build the most expensive apparatus in the history of the world to come up with a finalised description of the atom, and it is still an open question as to whether this will succeed.
So if it is so hard to describe the workings of an atom, why are you so confident that we can model the workings of the most complex single object in the known universe, namely, the human brain?
