I wish I'd taken a course from Dreyfus, especially on this topic, but aside from the occasional seminar he only taught Heidegger and lower division courses in the early 2000s. Here's his course list for the last decade of his life (https://philosophy.berkeley.edu/people/courses/12). It's interesting in hindsight that even with Searle still teaching, there was no 'AI' course at Berkeley. I suspect they all viewed it as an old and settled debate and subsumed under Mind. I wonder if that's changed!
I wish I'd taken a course from Dreyfus, especially on this topic, but aside from the occasional seminar he only taught Heidegger and lower division courses in the early 2000s. Here's his course list for the last decade of his life (https://philosophy.berkeley.edu/people/courses/12). It's interesting in hindsight that even with Searle still teaching, there was no 'AI' course at Berkeley. I suspect they all viewed it as an old and settled debate and subsumed under Mind. I wonder if that's changed!
AI is too concrete for philosophy :)
That's funny ... I would have said it's way too vague!
Maybe - although a discipline that produced Hegel feels like it can deal with vague.
The quest for thinning our ontology to unlock paths forward feels so resonant. In platform engineering, it's a question of opinion: https://glazkov.com/2022/02/23/the-cost-of-opinion/
Exactly - thin ontologies are informed by epistemic humility and parsimony.