The assumption that human learning and “machine learning” are somehow equivalent (in a physical, ethical, or legal sense—the domain shifts throughout the essay) is not supported with evidence here. They spend a long time describing how machine learning is different from human learning on a computational level, but that doesn’t seem to impact the rest of the argument.
I wish AI proponents would use the plain meaning of words in their persuasive arguments, instead of muddying the waters with anthropomorphic metaphors that smuggle in the conclusion.
Exactly. In particular, when I train a model, I have a defined process for training, and I can flip the switch between "learning" and "not learning" to define exactly when the model adjusts its weights as a result of inputs. Humans can't do that with their brains. Thus, for humans, learning can't be decoupled from viewing, but it absolutely can be for AI.
I wish AI proponents would use the plain meaning of words in their persuasive arguments, instead of muddying the waters with anthropomorphic metaphors that smuggle in the conclusion.