Uh... The premise is that human intelligence evolved as a biological imperative for survival. That much, I can get behind. The article also says that modern AIs work in two dimensions (picture of cats, text), while humans operate far better perception of things. That much is fair, but I fail to see how it diminishes the capabilities an AI system could have. We already have scanners that sniff bomb material, and we have understanding of how molecules interact with the sensors in our nostrils: build artificial olfactory off that! Other senses might be much easier, much harder or completely unnecessary to build, but it's not something that can't be achieved. An AI is not to be built like a human being, because it will never be a human being. It will never have the same biological imperatives because it's artificial. It needs not live like we do. It doesn't require the same biological impulses to drive it. It is, by its very definition, not human. We're not the most efficient biological structure, either. There are animals and simpler creatures that do things better than we would ever be able to. Just look at the dog's acute olfactory. Look at some of the sea creatures being effectively immortal. We're damn effective, but the human body has nothing on things we can build. It's not that an AI can't have imperatives of its own, either. People have barely dabbled with it yet, for good reason. Nothing stops us from building an AI with a purpose, simple as it may be still. But that's not the point. The article's rather poorly-shown idea is in the last sentence: This is the point: that we have to give the system context. An AI has to learn from real-world circumstances, not lab conditions. You can't build immunity while living in a bubble. But who dares unleash a freshly-built AI into the real world?<..> we have little hope of achieving this goal unless we think carefully about how to give algorithms some kind of long-term, embodied relationship with their environment.