True, any research programme requires assumptions. The problem lies when those assumptions are either false or theoretical (unproved), and the community derives facts or claims from them.
Behind the actual AI programme operate the following assumptions (at least):
1. A biological assumption, that states that the brain works similar to a digital computer. The reality is that we do not know.
2. An epistemological assumption, that states that we know how our brain works (or an even worse assumption, that states that we don't even need to know how it works, it is sufficient to replicate its observed behavior). This is rather simplified, the assumption in reality being (as stated by Dreyfus) that we think all intelligent behavior can be formalized as heuristic rules (Dreyfus' critique is based on GOFAI, since the book is pre-GAN/RL AI systems). But the assumption still applies: we think all intelligent behavior can be sampled, captured and formalized in (albeit complex) statistical systems.
Dreyfus describes 4 or 5 in total, one of them is the psychological assumption, which states that the mind itself can be described as a digital computer (I think it might be outdated, since the actual debate is if something we could call 'mind' exists at all).
There is also a fallacy called first-step fallacy, which states that if the first step towards intelligence is met, then the rest of the steps are of similar nature (technical).
Behind the actual AI programme operate the following assumptions (at least):
1. A biological assumption, that states that the brain works similar to a digital computer. The reality is that we do not know.
2. An epistemological assumption, that states that we know how our brain works (or an even worse assumption, that states that we don't even need to know how it works, it is sufficient to replicate its observed behavior). This is rather simplified, the assumption in reality being (as stated by Dreyfus) that we think all intelligent behavior can be formalized as heuristic rules (Dreyfus' critique is based on GOFAI, since the book is pre-GAN/RL AI systems). But the assumption still applies: we think all intelligent behavior can be sampled, captured and formalized in (albeit complex) statistical systems.
Dreyfus describes 4 or 5 in total, one of them is the psychological assumption, which states that the mind itself can be described as a digital computer (I think it might be outdated, since the actual debate is if something we could call 'mind' exists at all).
There is also a fallacy called first-step fallacy, which states that if the first step towards intelligence is met, then the rest of the steps are of similar nature (technical).