Completely agree. The history of this dates back to philosopher Hubert Dreyfus, who, observing the halting progress of text recognition research at the time, an

Completely agree. The history of this dates back to philosopher Hubert Dreyfus, who, observing the halting progress of text recognition research at the time, and made open ended declarations that computers can't do X. He said computers couldn't compete at human levels in chess because chess required "insight." This claim did not age well. I find these to be confused, hodgepodgey, not clearly centered on any coherent argument, and often just plain shallow and wrong while masquerading as deep insights. I am glad that, at least, the recent advances in AI are repudiating this genre, or at least forcing articles to add new caveats as to why recent advances don't count.