Maybe the article doesn't get it across, but the anti-establishment crowd doesn't think that doing things the "human way" is always the best solution. In fact,

Maybe the article doesn't get it across, but the anti-establishment crowd doesn't think that doing things the "human way" is always the best solution. In fact, they acknowledge that it's often, even usually, not. Hofstadter does not want to replace (e.g.) GPS AI with human-style intelligence, or even more ridiculous, replace the AI that flies airplanes with one that gets bored and does crossword puzzles instead of paying attention. Instead he wants to understand human-style intelligence because that opens doors to tacking really interesting scientific/philosophical problems like personality, self, consciousness, autonomy, etc. In short, the camps have different goals. One is trying to solve problems optimally. The other is trying to understand what intelligence means, biologically. AI as a sub-discipline of Engineering, vs. AI as a sub-discipline of Cognitive Science, perhaps.