>Why? It's a mystery to me. Gary Marcus is doing good to try and shake up the field a bit. We need to move on from our successes just as we move on from our fai

>Why? It's a mystery to me. Gary Marcus is doing good to try and shake up the field a bit. We need to move on from our successes just as we move on from our failures. And he's damn right about the how, too: symbolic AI is due for a comeback. How would we define "symbolic", though? I'm about to give a presentation on some related matters next week, and I've been trying to think about how to avoid just saying, as Marcus is perceived to do, "lol psychology critiques AI so AI needs to use symbols." For example, there are loads and loads of symbolic AI techniques which don't demonstrate basic features of "symbolic" human cognition such as causal inference and productivity/compositionality, on top of symbolic techniques having essentially no way to address the Frame Problem.