If the book is as "technical" as this article than I don't think I'll be reading it. The sole argument, it seems, is that computers lack the nebulously defined "concept".
If you don't define it, than you might as well be saying it lacks a soul and can therefore never be truly intelligent. What does understanding a concept mean?
Because AI researchers have been working to get closer to this understanding for years, and to simply say "it isn't there yet" falls a bit flat. It's like saying climbing a tree isn't flying, while ignoring the attempts to fly with kites, wingsuits, or parachutes: we might not have a plane yet, but we are making progress.
If you don't define it, than you might as well be saying it lacks a soul and can therefore never be truly intelligent. What does understanding a concept mean?
Because AI researchers have been working to get closer to this understanding for years, and to simply say "it isn't there yet" falls a bit flat. It's like saying climbing a tree isn't flying, while ignoring the attempts to fly with kites, wingsuits, or parachutes: we might not have a plane yet, but we are making progress.