World knowledge, as Bar-Hillel pointed out, couldn’t really be supplied to computers — at least not in any straightforward, engineering manner — beca… - Erik J. Larson

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.

Notice that the story [of technical progress accelerating indefinitely] is not testable; we just have to wait around and see. If the predicted year of true AI's coming is false, too, another one can be forecast, a few decades into the future. AI in this sense is unfalsifiable and thus — according to the accepted rules of the scientific method — unscientific.

Careers were made. Bletchley, meanwhile, also proved a haven for thinking about computation: Bombes were machines, and they ran programs to solve problems that humans, by themselves, could not.