Doesn't Chaitin's incompleteness theorem mean AI cannot learn? All axiomatic systems have a fairly low threshold past which they cannot identify random bitstrings, and all computational systems are axiomatic systems.
I'm not saying that it is. Science does not concern themselves with such theories (yet) because of Alder's Razor ("what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating") [1].
I submit that AI cannot learn, per my previous comment. Furthermore, I submit that humans can learn, evidence being school, science and math. Ergo, humans are not AI.
Matter settled, debate over.
1. Current AI is a miniscule subset of the set of all AI, so you need to argue why the observation generalizes to all possible AI.
2. The statement "AI cannot learn" is too ambiguous because you fail to define "learn".
2. Learning is being able to recognize ever increasing levels of complexity. All axiomatic systems have a complexity recognition limit.
Whatever gave you that idea?
"[...] we can prove any theorem using Haskell types because every type is inhabited. Therefore, Haskell's type system actually corresponds to an inconsistent logic system."
Thus Haskell programs in general don't correspond to a consistent axiomatic system, which provides counterexample to your statement. Rebuttal complete.
> Chaitin's incompleteness theorem mean AI cannot learn