Yeah, most of this is "not even wrong". Like: > We don’t have any consensus on what we meant by “intelligence,” but all the leading definitions include “compr

Yeah, most of this is "not even wrong". Like: > We don’t have any consensus on what we meant by “intelligence,” but all the leading definitions include “comprehension,” and statistical infer­ence doesn’t lead to comprehension, even if it sometimes approximates it. So now the semantic shell game is stuck on defining "comprehension". In the next paragraph he starts to suggest it has something to do with generalization -- but that's a concept around which ML practitioners are constantly innovating in formalizing, and using those formal measures to good effect. Also, "comprehension" is absent in plenty of definitions of intelligence. Take Oxford's "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". Huge parts of the world work around notions of intelligence demonstrated through action, not a philosophical abstraction. I'll never understand the "ML won't make my version of AGI" crowd's view on science in general. "This won't work in ways I refuse to define" isn't scientific criticism, and doesn't show any particular curiosity or interest in advancing the state of the art. It's just a rhetorical pose that seems aimed at building up a platform for the next time there's some AI pratfall to point out.