James Lighthill is sometimes criticized for commenting on a field in which he was not expert, so it adds context to look at why he was solicited for comment. At

James Lighthill is sometimes criticized for commenting on a field in which he was not expert, so it adds context to look at why he was solicited for comment. At that time, fluid dynamics was one of the most prestigious technical fields in British academia, being very difficult, mathematical, and successful. Lighthill was the superstar of the field, so he was an obvious choice when the Science Research Council went looking for someone with status and technical chops to give a disinterested analysis of AI research. It is rather like how Richard Feynman was drafted to investigate the Challenger disaster. TFA says ...Lighthill was no fool. And yet, he was very confidently and persuasively wrong about the potential for AI... I disagree, his report (which is short and readable) raises issues that are still pertinent. We currently have debate over whether GPT represents true intelligence and Lighthill's comments foreshadow those of current skeptics. The author of TFA is clearly not a skeptic and accepts the views of John McCarthy. I have studied the debate between McCarthy and Hubert Dreyfus over the potential of AI, and I personally think that Dreyfus was right, current hype over ChatGPT notwuthstanding.