I looked this up the other day and "reasoning" in AI is used as far back as McCarthy (1959), and was certainly well established for expert systems in the 80s, so I think it's a little late to complain about it.
McCarthy wasn't infallible & the initial founders of the field were so full of themselves that they thought they were going to have the whole thing figured out in less than one summer. The hype has always been an established part of the AI culture but the people who uncritically buy into it deserve all the ridicule that comes their way.
Computers can't think. Boolean logic is not a sufficient explanation for cognition & never will be.
I've heard that enough times to know it's a meme b/c no one who says that has an answer why classical computers can not do what a single cell can do. This is before we even get to the unphysical abstractions of infinite tapes & infinite energies inherent in the notion of a Turing machine.
Basically, your position is not serious b/c you haven't actually thought about what you're saying.
I looked this up the other day and "reasoning" in AI is used as far back as McCarthy (1959), and was certainly well established for expert systems in the 80s, so I think it's a little late to complain about it.
McCarthy wasn't infallible & the initial founders of the field were so full of themselves that they thought they were going to have the whole thing figured out in less than one summer. The hype has always been an established part of the AI culture but the people who uncritically buy into it deserve all the ridicule that comes their way.
Computers can't think. Boolean logic is not a sufficient explanation for cognition & never will be.
I think it's very unlikely, in fact physically impossible, that brains are a higher complexity class than classical computers.
I've heard that enough times to know it's a meme b/c no one who says that has an answer why classical computers can not do what a single cell can do. This is before we even get to the unphysical abstractions of infinite tapes & infinite energies inherent in the notion of a Turing machine.
Basically, your position is not serious b/c you haven't actually thought about what you're saying.
Computers don't "do" things in the first place, they compute things. The rest is side effects.
You have to ignore those, otherwise you've declared all computers quantum computers because parts of it use quantum effects.