He says: Since no one understands how general unsupervised learning actually works, we're quite a ways off from building the general AIs you see in movies. S

He says: Since no one understands how general unsupervised learning actually works, we're quite a ways off from building the general AIs you see in movies. Some people claim this is just a matter of getting more computing power -- and that as Moore's law continues and computing becomes cheaper we'll naturally have AIs that surpass human intelligence. This is incorrect. We fundamentally do not understand how general learning works. This is an unsolved problem -- maybe the most important problem of this century or even millennium. Until we solve this problem, throwing all the machine power in the world at it cannot create an AI that can do everything a person can. I recognize that this is the accepted belief of most people in the computer science community, but isn't it akin to saying that since we don't understand it, our human intelligence must be the result of "intelligent design" or an omnipotent creator? Why does the core of the computer science dismiss the possibility of strong AI arising through evolution even with the increasing popularity of evolutionary algorithms?