> In other words, we have made great strides in teaching AI "physics" or "recognition", but we have made very little progress in teaching it metaphysics (catego

> In other words, we have made great strides in teaching AI "physics" or "recognition", but we have made very little progress in teaching it metaphysics (categories, in this case) because half the people working on the problem don't even recognize metaphysics as a category even though without it, they could not perceive the world. A bold claim, but I'm not sure it's one that accurately matches reality. It reminds me of reading about attempts in the 80's to construct AI by having linguists come in and trying to develop rules for the system. From my experience, current methods of developing AI are a lot closer to how most humans think and interact with the world than academic philosophy is. Academic philosophy might be fine, but it's quite possible it's no more useful for navigating the world than the debates over theological minutiae have been.