I'm not demanding that they are successful at "defining what can't be exactly defined". I would just like them to make an effort to do so.
The author's whole claims about "being in the world" and "tacit knowledege" are quite amenable to further, useful definition and expansion. For example, do they mean by "tacit" "not subject to an implementation in a way that could include an electronic digital computing device?" Or do they mean "not subject to explication by the human that carries said knowledge" ? By "being in the world" do they mean being a causal object or is merely being subject to the behavior of other causal objects sufficient? There are so many dimensions to both of these central concepts, and yet the author barely explores them at all.
The author also makes no effort to differentiate between computers and robots, even when such a distinction seems quite important if you're going to make claims about "being in the world".
The stated goal of the article was to show "Why General Artificial Intelligence will not be realized".
Show me a human who learned how to ride a bike by watching others.
My impression is that the general dynamics robots are already on a path that isn't hard to imagine becoming quite animal-learning like in the reasonable near-term future. Their body (as with any animal) is a mostly-given, as are the available control systems. Couple this to a NN-style learning process that takes place inside the robot rather than over there in the programmer's development system, and I'm not really sure I see an important distinction given the parameters of your question.
The author's whole claims about "being in the world" and "tacit knowledege" are quite amenable to further, useful definition and expansion. For example, do they mean by "tacit" "not subject to an implementation in a way that could include an electronic digital computing device?" Or do they mean "not subject to explication by the human that carries said knowledge" ? By "being in the world" do they mean being a causal object or is merely being subject to the behavior of other causal objects sufficient? There are so many dimensions to both of these central concepts, and yet the author barely explores them at all.
The author also makes no effort to differentiate between computers and robots, even when such a distinction seems quite important if you're going to make claims about "being in the world".
The stated goal of the article was to show "Why General Artificial Intelligence will not be realized".