[amelius]

But the logic seems flawed.

He has built an AI system that fails to do X.

That does not mean there isn't an AI system that can do X. Especially considering that a lot is happening in AI, as you say.

Anyway, Carmack knows a lot about optimizing computations on modern hardware. In practice, that happens to be also necessary for AI. However, it is not __sufficient__ for AI.

[gerdesj]

"He has built an AI system that fails to do X."

Perhaps you have put your finger on the fatal flaw ...

[PeeMcGee]

> That does not mean there isn't an AI system that can do X.

You are holding the burden of proof here...

[amelius]

No, Carmack holds the burden of proof because he started the argument. His incapable program does not prove anything.

Maybe this is formulated a bit harshly, but let us respect the logic here.

[jeffreygoesto]

One of my supervisors used to say: "Don't tell me it's impossible, tell me _you_ could not do it." A true c_nt move that ends every discussion.

[amelius]

Huh, by saying that something is impossible, __you__ are ending the discussion, not your professor.

[lucumo]

No. Pointing out a flaw in an argument doesn't require proving the opposite.

[nkmnz]

This is exactly how Science works. He’s right until proven wrong. And so are you.