The "Never" part is not only impossible to prove but also a useless prediction. Just talk about the present and near future instead.
For those time frames I fully agree: there is no AI, it's just form without function. A shallow copy of one part of what writing is about. Just like makeshift wings strapped to your arms is to true flying. An expression of a wish, not even close to a result. Writing a novel involves living, having experiences, reflecting upon them, things that computers are nowhere near for now.
And here I agree: anybody who presents current solutions as writing AI is just marketing bullshit. Having the article stop at this would have been a lot more fair.
But if you also want to talk about the far future: I think it's just as wrong to say "never" as to say "it will surely come". People like to give examples of things we thought impossible but turned out doable. Pure selection/survivorship bias that proves nothing.
Very good points about the futility of discussing about possible/impossible for the distant future.
However, I think that this article in particular is making such a downright stupid argument that it deserves to be called out more explicitly. It is arguing that brains derive computational power (the power to model causation) from the directionality of nerve impulses, nucleus -> synapse and never the other way; and that computers with their binary transistors can only model stateless logic (true or false).
This is worse techno-babble than most Sci-fi. It's wrong on every level, and it's shameful for a university professor to produce such drivel and publish it.
For those time frames I fully agree: there is no AI, it's just form without function. A shallow copy of one part of what writing is about. Just like makeshift wings strapped to your arms is to true flying. An expression of a wish, not even close to a result. Writing a novel involves living, having experiences, reflecting upon them, things that computers are nowhere near for now.
And here I agree: anybody who presents current solutions as writing AI is just marketing bullshit. Having the article stop at this would have been a lot more fair.
But if you also want to talk about the far future: I think it's just as wrong to say "never" as to say "it will surely come". People like to give examples of things we thought impossible but turned out doable. Pure selection/survivorship bias that proves nothing.