This article seems very confused. Most importantly, it doesn&#x27;t distinguish between what AI can do <i>right now</i>, and what the <i>theoretical limit</i> of AI is, in 50 or 100 or 500 years. Everyone agrees that AI today, and in the near future, doesn&#x27;t even vaguely resemble a &quot;person&quot;. That doesn&#x27;t imply that much more powerful, &quot;person-like&quot; AI will forever be impossible. Airplanes weren&#x27;t a practical means of travel in 1910, but by 1960 it was a different story, and some people in 1910 had already realized that plane travel was coming.<p>Secondly, it does a lot of handwaving about &quot;religion&quot;. I am an atheist, and think most religious beliefs are irrational. However, that doesn&#x27;t mean that every belief that &quot;looks like&quot; religion (in some vague, poorly-defined way) is irrational. The Aztec religion was false, but Hernan Cortes and his army of men with guns was very real. It would have been stupid for Aztec atheists to ignore Cortes because &quot;that sounded like religion&quot;. The right question to ask is &quot;is this claim supported by the evidence?&quot;, not &quot;how much like religion does this claim sound?&quot;.