I think we need to rephrase the “dead-end” accusation towards AI

I think we need to rephrase the “dead-end” accusation towards AI. At the moment, these accusations fall into the trap of “AI is not capable of doing X because it’s a dead-end” which is now easy to shoot down with “AI can now do X!”, where X is “cooking” or “painting” or “write code” or whatever.<br><br>So I think we need to modify the “dead-end” accusation. <br><br>Say, the relevant phrase is now: “history shows that every time intelligence is mistaken by creativity, the result is a push back towards the new paradigm and not the old one that is now seen as a dead-end”, or “history shows that every time what is seen as intelligence/creativity is recognized as machine intelligence/creativity, the result is a push back towards the new paradigm and not the old one that is now seen as a dead-end”.<br><br>Then, whoever says “AI can cook!” or “AI can paint!” can be answered by “nice, but does that mean we’re gonna move back to the medieval paradigm?”.