https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...

The idea that the earth travels around the sun was once a "fringe idea."

> he is so clearly using his tenure as a defense against the ... untestability, of his ideas.

The idea of the earth going around the sun was untestable until Tycho Brahe got enough data and Kepler put it together in a way that could more parsimoniously and accurate predict planetary motion.

In other words, the experience that you describe perfectly fits into his argument. You might want to read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" to get the full picture.

> I share the skepticism towards any progress towards 'general AI' - I don't think that we're remotely close or even on the right path in any way.

This isn't how science works though. Quoting the wikipedia page for Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...):

"Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity where there is cumulative progress, which Kuhn referred to as periods of "normal science", were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science."

I think this is the accepted model in the philosophy of science since the 1970s. That's why I find this argument about AI so strange, especially when it comes from respected science writers.

The idea that accumulated progress along the current path is insufficient for a breakthrough like AGI is almost obviously true. Your second point is important here. Most researchers aren't concerned with AGI because incremental ML and AI research is interesting and useful in its own right.

We can't predict when the next paradigm shift in AI will occur. So it's a bit absurd to be optimistic or skeptical. When that shift happens we don't know if it will catapult us straight to AGI or be another stepping stone on a potentially infinite series of breakthroughs that never reaches AGI. To think of it any other way is contrary to what we know about how science works. I find it odd how much ink is being spent on this question by journalists.

"... Although they used different terminologies, both Kuhn and Michael Polanyi believed that scientists' subjective experiences made science a relativized discipline. Polanyi lectured on this topic for decades before Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." [2]

If you haven't checked out Polanyi yet, look up The Tacit Dimension — a very short book that talks about "tacit knowledge" (also discussed in uky.edu page, with attribution).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn#Polanyi%E2%80%93Ku...

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn is an excellent read on this topic - dense but considered one of the most important works in the philosophy of science. It popularized Planck's Principle paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time." As you note, the true machinery is a very complicated mix of human factors and actual science.

"Supporters of Polanyi charged Kuhn with plagiarism, as it was known that Kuhn attended several of Polanyi's lectures, and that the two men had debated endlessly over epistemology before either had achieved fame. After the charge of plagiarism, Kuhn acknowledged Polanyi in the Second edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.[7] Despite this intellectual alliance, Polanyi's work was constantly interpreted by others within the framework of Kuhn's paradigm shifts, much to Polanyi's (and Kuhn's) dismay"