Why did he start a research direction that 50 years later "might turn out" to not be a good idea?
That's a relatively silly question, don't you think?
That's a relatively silly question, don't you think?
>So one reason he might lament the status quo is because it has people thinking we have achieved AI when we haven't.
I don't think the article allows us to infer this at all.
>But also, it wasn't apparent until recently that even if the tech did work as promised, it will be an awful thing because humans will use it to bad ends. I don't think it's particularly blame-worthy that he didn't foresee that 50 years ago.
No, really, that would be extremely naive, we can expect better from scientists.