Re: the error is in call it "AI" !!!
The machines aren't learning, we're aren't "teaching" them to do anything. All we are doing is using datasets to produce statistical predictions on future data
Would you care to articulate and support your theory of learning which demonstrates a substantive difference from a statistical process that makes "predictions on future data"? Feel free to draw on logical positivism, metaphysics, phenomenology, pedagogical theory, cognitive science - I'd just like to see an actual fucking argument rather than handwaving and posturing.
(I'll ignore for now the fact that "produce statistical predictions on future data" is not an adequate or useful description of ML.)