[frklem]

I can't believe this article is being published in Nature. The article is flawed, plagued with assumptions that I guess the author doesn't even notice (like what do we really mean by AGI, the epistemological problems/assumptions to intelligence, the real nature of thinking, the real functioning of the human brain). It is really curious that the philosophical community is addressing the debate on what AI really is and its implications, but the computer science community does not read almost anything about philosophy. Regarding the fear of 'losing control of it', I would suggest reading the works (or at least about) of Gunther Anders and Bernard Stiegler. Technology (in this case AI) is inseparable from human being, to the point that we already lost control of technology, its use and its meaning (like, 100 years ago). Another thing that surprises me is how the computer science community is blind to the work of Hubert Dreyfus and other contemporary philosophers that analyze AI from and epistemological and philosophical perspective. But, actually, I should no t be surprised: we barely study philosophy in any scientific discipline when attending university. This rhetoric about how AI is similar to the human brain is starting to be a bit boring. It assumes a very simplistic view on the brain and turns a deaf ear to other types of research (like language acquisition and embodiment, mind/brain duality, epistemological basis for knowledge acquisition, ontological basis of causal reasoning...). And above all, what is really upsetting is the techno-optimism behind this way of thinking.

[sigmoid10]

This is not a scientific paper that was published in nature by researchers, it is a news editorial written by an editor/journalist. Don't get fooled by the domain.

[FrustratedMonky]

Yes. Why do people have a problem with Nature publishing the occasional 'article' instead of a 'paper'.

[pera]

You are probably thinking of Nature Communications. This article was posted on their more pop-science publishing site.

You aren't the first one mislead by the Nature brand btw - if you look into past submissions you will find similar comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=nature.com

[frklem]

I know it is an article, and not a scientific publication, but that does not change the fact that the article is not serious at all regarding the ongoing discussion on AI. If this gets published in Nature, even as an opinion article, is because there is a general ideology that can actually produce this kind of content.

[pera]

I agree and I think it's good that you pointed that out. Unfortunately the quality of nature.com articles is often quite bad.