Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

Here is, to me, the relevant line: "Hubert Dreyfus, who argued that computers, who have no body, no childhood and no cultural practice, could not acquire intelligence at all. One of Dreyfus’ main arguments was that human knowledge is partly tacit, and therefore cannot be articulated and incorporated in a computer program. " I have not read the rest of the article but in the introduction it's stated: "The article further argues that this is in principle impossible, and it…

I do find it remarkable that someone like my wife can spend 4 years doing long hours in a lab performing scientific experiments to achieve one small but conclusive scientific result, yet someone else can publish an article like this in a seemingly legitimate academic journal, which buzzes from anecdote to anecdote like a bee with ADHD and doesn't appear to add more than an opinion to the sum of human knowledge.

It's an interesting article. I'm not sure I agree with it 100% - I would say a lot depends on the larger picture and incentives. Right now, there is a huge incentives to create "narrow AIs" because they help improve productivity and get rid of tedious labor, from facial recognition to harvesting machines. So, none of those AIs has 'skin in the game' or as the paper calls is 'are in this world'. However, if there were a concerted push…