I'm very sympathetic to Marcus' point that AGI requires both symbols (discrete forms of semantic abstraction) and logic, neither of which is likely to emerge gr

I'm very sympathetic to Marcus' point that AGI requires both symbols (discrete forms of semantic abstraction) and logic, neither of which is likely to emerge gracefully from deep learning or other forms of probabilistic reasoning that isn't curated by explicitly adding objects and relations. But I'm getting tired of hearing the same old stale philosophical gamesmanship that cognitive science never got beyond. Gary and the other DL naysayers need to offer concrete examples of essential cognitive capabilities that symbolic reasoning can deliver that DL cannot (the way Minsky and Papert did with the perceptron and XOR). Then they need to design and build such models (or add ons) and show us that they outperform as promised. Otherwise all I'm hearing are just abstract semantic arguments. And after 50+ years of those that led AI nowhere, it's time for all brain builders to do more than argue.