I fully agree with the author that it is extremely unlikely that AI will take over in the foreseeable future. > He seems unaware of limitations of AI as mathem

I fully agree with the author that it is extremely unlikely that AI will take over in the foreseeable future. > He seems unaware of limitations of AI as mathematically > argued by Nobel laureate Roger Penrose decades ago in “The > Emperor’s New Mind.” Or Searle’s Chinese room argument > that convincingly demonstrates computers, and thus AI, > will never understand what they do. I think that the question whether the system understands is mainly a red herring. The Turing test elegantly skips this entire issue. It seems to me that we are currently pretty close to passing the Turing tests in some limited domains. > Or Selmer Bringsjord’s Lovelace test that a computer must > pass to demonstrate creativity. This one seems even easier than a Turing test. There are many different types of poetry, and many poems are quite incomprehensible to most readers. Given the impressive results of current language generating systems (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-3), training one of them to generate poems should not be too difficult.