I am actually disappointed with his view. I thought he had a psychology background and should have known better than his obvious reductionist view. What neural

I am actually disappointed with his view. I thought he had a psychology background and should have known better than his obvious reductionist view. What neural network have demonstrated so far is that it can do a form of perception given enough ground truth data. Speech recognition and image recognition are all form of perception. Go playing is also mostly about perception: recognizing good patterns. There are multiple issues with extrapolating this achievement to anything more than what it is. First, perception is a only minuscule part of the brain's functionality. One only needs to glance at the table of content page of any cognitive psychology 101 textbook to see that. Second, it is not clear human's perceptual ability is the same as what NN has demonstrated. For example, human's perceptual learning is mostly based on unsupervised learning, not supervised like in NN. Finally, his dismissal of "traditional" approach is extremely short-sighted. He seems to suggest that we can solve AI by just throwing more hardware and power at NN. This view is very narrow minded. He also seems to overlook the high possibility that the "traditional" approach could benefit similarly from the advances in hardware and power. I predict the next breakthrough in AI will come from that direction.