While I tend to agree with the authors view, I'm also disappointed by the tone. The author seems to double down on the "I told you so", saying: "I stand by th

While I tend to agree with the authors view, I'm also disappointed by the tone. The author seems to double down on the "I told you so", saying: "I stand by that — which as far as I know (and I could be wrong) is the first place where anybody said that deep learning per se wouldn’t be a panacea, and would instead need to work in a larger context to solve a certain class of problems. Bengio was pretty much saying the same thing." which stakes out a priority claim (that deep learning is not a panacea) that appears somewhat superficial given the huge literature on causal modeling and shortcomings of the alternatives.