> ML et al. are NOT MAGIC but they are treated as if they were.
They're not magic - nothing is, but what are they?
> but it also have fundamental limits that no one talks about seriously
What are these fundamental limits? 20 years ago I imagine skeptics in your camp would have set these "fundamental" limits at lower than DALL-E 2, GPT-3, AlphaStar etc. Or are you talking about limits today? In which case, sure, but I think "fundamental" is the wrong word to use there given they change continuously.
> It's mathematically related to all prior signal processing techniques (mostly a proper superset)
And human brains are what if not signal processing machines?
They're not magic - nothing is, but what are they?
> but it also have fundamental limits that no one talks about seriously
What are these fundamental limits? 20 years ago I imagine skeptics in your camp would have set these "fundamental" limits at lower than DALL-E 2, GPT-3, AlphaStar etc. Or are you talking about limits today? In which case, sure, but I think "fundamental" is the wrong word to use there given they change continuously.
> It's mathematically related to all prior signal processing techniques (mostly a proper superset)
And human brains are what if not signal processing machines?