> This article is absolutely pointless. Not at all, but maybe you didn't read far enough to get to it. > The statement was from 2009. Back then, neither side

> This article is absolutely pointless. Not at all, but maybe you didn't read far enough to get to it. > The statement was from 2009. Back then, neither side had any real evidence in favour of their argument. Deep learning and AI were still purely academic experiments, with zero practicality. That's exactly what the article says: I was explaining that there was no trend you could knowably, reliably project into the future such that you’d end up with human-level AI. And in a sense, I was right. and then it explicitly states the point: The trouble, with hindsight, was that I placed the burden of proof only on those saying a dramatic change would happen, not on those saying it wouldn’t. Note that this is the exact same mistake most of the world made with COVID in early 2020. I would sum up the lesson thus: one must never use radical ignorance as an excuse to default, in practice, to the guess that everything will stay basically the same.