This article really feels like so much nit picking. I hate these kind of semantic debates. > How, I asked, does an AI system without the human capacity for con

This article really feels like so much nit picking. I hate these kind of semantic debates. > How, I asked, does an AI system without the human capacity for conscious self-reflection, empathy or moral intelligence become superhuman merely by being a faster problem-solver? Aren’t we more than that? And doesn’t granting the label “superhuman” to machines that lack the most vital dimensions of humanity end up obscuring from our view the very things about being human that we care about? This is such an annoying framing. There are massive assumptions throughout this, from "human capacity", "conscious self-reflection", "moral intelligence". And then throwing those assumptive definitions into another persons face, demanding how they relate to "superhuman" intelligence. It's almost like the author is saying "I have intuitive definitions for this grab-bag of words that don't align with my intuitive definition of this one particular word you are using". > characterizations of human beings as acting wisely, playfully, inventively, insightfully, meditatively, courageously, compassionately or justly are no more than poetic license Again, the author has some intuitive sense of the definition of these words. If the author wants to get spiritual/supernatural/mystical about it all then they are free to go ahead and do so. They should come out and make the bold claim instead of masquerading their opinion as reasonable/rational discourse. They are more likely to find a sympathetic audience for that.