it's actually astounding that they seem to be repeating some fundamental assumptions that are widely regarded as missteps. Although tbh I did see a paper some AI scholars discussed Dreyfus and didn't even get his first name right. So maybe it tracks.

I’m actually not that astounded. The intellectual curiousity of these main players is weak at best. I think this is all just part of being involved with something that lets a lot of money be moved around, it’s not actually about AI