Given how often the critics have "moved the goal posts" and subtly tweaked their arguments, I'd expect they will claim to have been right about needing symbolic

Given how often the critics have "moved the goal posts" and subtly tweaked their arguments, I'd expect they will claim to have been right about needing symbolic reasoning, no matter how we get there. My perception is that they care mainly about pointing out failure modes and about ultimately being proven "right" -- not about making contributions that can actually improve existing systems. In fact, AFAIK, the critics have made ZERO contributions to improve existing AI systems.