> and I think it is obvious now that no natural intelligence works symbolically
Not even at the level of language? I don't think it's obvious yet that ML can scale to doing all the things as well as natural intelligences. It's had it's successes, yes, but those are still in limited domains. There's no general purpose ML AI yet.
The difference between AlphaGo and human Go players is that while AlphaGo is superior at the game, you can change the game in arbitrary ways that the human players can easily learn and adapt their play for, but would require programmers modifying the code for AlphaGo. It can't just learn to perform any arbitrary task.
ML performs extremely well in very well defined settings, but computers have always been better than humans in those kinds of domains. That's why we invented them.
Why would human transferable intelligence have anything to do with symbolics or language?
Computer languages are already far more effective at problem solving than human languages, hardly even thinks of that as AI.
Not even at the level of language? I don't think it's obvious yet that ML can scale to doing all the things as well as natural intelligences. It's had it's successes, yes, but those are still in limited domains. There's no general purpose ML AI yet.
The difference between AlphaGo and human Go players is that while AlphaGo is superior at the game, you can change the game in arbitrary ways that the human players can easily learn and adapt their play for, but would require programmers modifying the code for AlphaGo. It can't just learn to perform any arbitrary task.
ML performs extremely well in very well defined settings, but computers have always been better than humans in those kinds of domains. That's why we invented them.