Again: either stop using > quotes or learn to use them better. Fucking unreadable.
I reiterate: philosophy is almost entirely worthless for AI design. We want to design systems that work, not systems that sound good on paper. If philosophy had a practical application in that, we'd stop calling it "philosophy" and start calling it "math", "science" or "engineering".
Again: don't be rude. Not nice. As 'not nice' as my bad formatting.
Philosophy is there precisely to critique and analyze what we build and how we behave in the world. Without it, by the way, there would be no science and no engineering.
Dismissing philosophy in AI is like dismissing philosophy in any other applied, practical or creative field. It is precisely because there is a philosophical investigation on each practical, applied or creative field, that that field can actually make progress.
There's philosophy in biology, which helps biology go further. Philosophy in engineering, which makes engineering go further. In architecture, film, photography, painting, literature, medicine, physics, linguistics, mathematics, etc, etc. In all those fields, there is also a philosophical investigation taking place. Right now.
Maybe you confound practical AI design (you should be talking of 'building AI systems') with AI as a research field. I get that, because lots of people cannot make the distinction (calling yourself 'AI researcher' when you actually tinker a model is not scientific. It might follow a scientific method, but it is engineering research, not scientific research).