[Crowbob]

Less hyped/more realistic? Clearly that depends. Apparently we have differing views from various scientists. Perhaps we need a consensus to settle the science. After all, it is called artificial intelligence. We're having a difficult enough time trying to determine what authentic intelligence so whose to say which intelligence is artificial (machines) and which is authentic (human)? Here are some interesting quotes from the Geektime piece.

"In response to Geektime’s query about Musk’s comments, Lanier said, “Elon is [in a sense] correct because if people believe in AI enough, then in practice, events can unfold as if AI is real…

It also justifies a world in which we put algorithms on a pedestal and believe they will solve all our problems. Jaron Lanier compares it to a religion:

“In the history of organized religion,” he told Edge.org, “it’s often been the case that people have been disempowered precisely to serve what were perceived to be the needs of some deity or another, where in fact what they were doing was supporting an elite class that was the priesthood for that deity.”

“That looks an awful lot like the new digital economy to me, where you have (natural language) translators and everybody else…contributing mostly to the fortunes of whoever runs the top computers. The new elite might say, “Well, but they’re helping the AI, it’s not us, they’re helping the AI. The effect of the new religious idea of AI is a lot like the economic effect of the old idea, religion.”

Or like the economic effects of that other new religion of Global Warming? The science of global warming is settled just as the science of AI is, apparently.