[DavidSumpter]

I am the author. I think it is interesting with this "axe to grind" response (there was another above). I am an independent researcher, a professor at a University. And I have absolutely no reason to be disappointed with Google. My knowledge of this subject goes considerably deeper than I write in the article, but it is important to get the points across in an easy to follow manner. Thus I use certain literary devices. But I think it isn't fair to describe my opinion as a "axe to grind". I might (of course) be wrong, but there is agenda.

[jfindley]

I'm not certain that claiming deep knowledge of the subject and handwaving about literary devices is a terribly useful response when you write an article suggesting decline while completely ignoring a bunch of significant more recent developments. That's not a literary device, that's cherry-picking facts to support a preconceived conclusion.

Paying more attention to other, more recent, developments might also have helped you avoid writing a paragraph where you talk about deepmind not being able to play games where it needs to perform multiple actions to obtain a reward - I think deepmind managing to beat professional starcraft players is clear evidence that this conclusion is questionable at best.

[DavidSumpter]

Ha ha *no agenda, I mean. ..... Maybe my subconscious has an agenda I don't know about :-)

[KineticLensman]

C.f. Sussman attains enlightenment [0]

[0] http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/koans.html#id3141241

[marcus_holmes]

Maybe you subconsciously want Google's AI research to collapse? ;)