> Aaronson’s biggest error, now corrected, sort of, in bold, is in assuming that Chomsky has spent his life in some sort of failed effort to build AI, which kin

> Aaronson’s biggest error, now corrected, sort of, in bold, is in assuming that Chomsky has spent his life in some sort of failed effort to build AI, which kind of entirely misses the point of Chomsky’s piece (which says in so many words that we need to study the mind first before we try to make AI) and also utterly misrepresents Chomsky’s career. Frankly, I would be embarrassed to have to publish a correction (the part in bold) like this [...] It’s a wild swing and a miss. Chomsky has spent his career trying to understand how humans acquire language, not “building machines” to try to do the same. This is pretty unfair IMO. Aaronson wrote (emphasis mine): > In this piece Chomsky, THE INTELLECTUAL GODFATHER GOD OF an effort that failed for 60 years to build machines that can converse in ordinary language, condemns the effort that succeeded. He never wrote that Chomsky himself was involved in this efforts, only that he was influential to it (which may or may not be true, but Marcus never argues that point).