Wow. I may have found the 1 other person on Medium who agrees with my position on AI, though I have been stronger in my own objections. You concede the position that what we have today is actually AI, while I totally disagree. We do not have AI currently, we have what in any other time we would have simply called modern computing. The definition of AI has been hedged back and back and back from its original inception in the 1950s to what it is today. You can call it AI all you want, but it is not, it is computers computing as they always have but programmed with more advanced (though not really all that advanced) mathematical and statistical techniques that attempt (but largely fail) to mimic the hypothetico deductive reasoning process in man. Artificial neural networks that form the basis of much of this hardware/software use as a model a conception of the brain which is still theoretical and much in debate. We do not even agree on what neural networks in the human brain are, or frankly, that they even exist. To suggest we can replicate a theoretical human brain structural/functional component and in so doing replicate intelligence is sheer lunacy. Don’t even get me started on the problems related to machines learning. Learning is an even more ill defined concept then neural networks and yet once again we claim we have constructed machines that are capable of it. Never mind the fact that the term itself is composed of two words that when combined in that order result in a logical contradiction and a thing which is logically impossible, a learning machine. Simply put if a machine could learn it would no longer be a machine. Wittgenstein would be rolling over in his grave. And the rampant commission of the mereological and what I have termed the compulogical fallacy is so out of control on this website and in these discussions it boggles the mind. In any case thanks for the great post and prepare to be lonely. I have written so much on this topic but a few links below.