General (non-narrow) intelligence of the sort we all display daily is not an algorithm running in our heads, but calls on the entire cultural, histor… - Erik J. Larson

"Science, once a triumph of human intelligence, now seems headed into a morass of rhetoric about the power of big data and new computational methods, where the scientists' role is now as a technician, essentially testing existing theories on IBM Blue Gene supercomputers.
But computers don't have insights. People do. And collaborative efforts are only effective when individuals are valued. Someone has to have an idea. Turing at Bletchley knew — or learned — this, but the lessons have been lost in the decades since. Technology, or rather AI technology, is now pulling "us" into "it." Stupefyingly, we now disparage Einstein to make room for talking-up machinery."

Kurzweilians and Russellians alike promulgate a technocentric view of the world that both simplifies views of people — in particular, with deflationary views of intelligence as computation — and expands views of technology, by promoting futurism about AI as science and not myth.
Focusing on bat suits instead of Bruce Wayne has gotten us into a lot of trouble. We see unlimited possibilities for machines, but a restricted horizon for ourselves. In fact, the future intelligence of machines is a scientific question, not a mythological one. If AI keeps following the same pattern of overperforming in the fake world of games or ad placement, we might end up, at the limit, with fantastically intrusive and dangerous idiot savants.

Here, it’s best to be clear: equating a mind with a computer is not scientific, it’s philosophical.