[twblalock]

My point is that both the author's writings and the AI he argues against are the kind of believable nonsense that only gets published for wide viewership because the internet makes it possible.

This whole comment thread is happening because a person who is wrong and not really smart is writing about how AI is wrong and not really smart, and none of this would happen if the internet didn't empower cranks in general, and it's sad that I have to spell this out.

[astrange]

The author is, as he says, a PhD in AI who was influential the last time anyone cared about AI in the 90s. I ain't seeing the crank bits here.

[jacquesm]

So your point is 'the internet allows for the cheap dissemination of information'?

[twblalock]

My point is to highlight the irony of the author being guilty of what he rails against.

[jacquesm]

I strongly disagree with that. The speed at which a human brain can output junk is non-zero but it is a lot lower than that which an AI can do. The fact that both eventually use the same transport mechanism doesn't really matter, the fact that we're talking about many orders of magnitude in difference of output speed is the thing that is relevant. A sufficiently large jump in quantity is a jump in quality! See also: spam.

And no matter what the quality of the author's writing that in particular is a valid point and even if the rest of the article detracts from that point through its quality that doesn't mean that you should reject the whole thing out of hand, but rather that it pays off to sift through the mess to see what stands and what doesn't, a bit like that HN appeal to use the principle of charity.

And if you do decide to reject an article out of hand then you might as well not comment on it. Because then effectively you too are guilty of what the author rails against.