[choudharism]

> I don’t think a simple “actually, no” is a useful counter argument to his point, especially when he used multiple examples and you just shook your head.

I shook my head because they were similar and equally bad.

> That’s not at all his specific argument about self-driving cars (there were entire sections about the decision making issues he saw), but is the crux of his argument about AI as a whole.

I was talking about the crux of his argument, which starts by saying that we won't get self-driving cars because <start of bad arguments>.

> And there’s a whole article discussing some of those, if you read the parts in the middle. I don’t think the dude’s necessarily right, but I’m also pretty sure you missed a lot of the text in an apparent race to summarily dismiss it.

In my complete reading, the article was geared towards discussing the impossibilities (rather than possibilities) from the POV of someone who hasn't taken any time to understand the cutting edge of research that he is critiquing. That was, in fact, my original point - critique is great, but don't mask personal intuition (potentially uneducated) as science.