Full disclosure- my intuition is a strong reaction in the negative but I've only just begun reading his book, and I find it particularly staggering that the introduction frames the debate as open-and-shut, with Dreyfus having won.

Dreyfus's introduction for example spends a lot of time going over the brick walls hit by AI in the mid 20th century. That's compelling for what its worth as it leads to a deeper appreciation for the problems such researchers were trying to solve, but as an argument it's similar to saying that a lack of a man on mars counts as proof that it's impossible for men to get to mars.

Also, as a general note, I find the approach of supplying strictly philosophical arguments suspicious- there is lots of room for vagueness, and for characterizing AI researchers as taking certain philosophical positions without meaningfully engaging with the fruits of their research.

I apologize if that sounds unnecessarily harsh. I do think that I have an obligation to read and seriously mull over these arguments given that I want to disbelieve them so strongly and I'd like to think I'm open to being convinced. So I'm hoping that there is someone in this community who approached this book with a similar mindset who's willing to share their experience with Dreyfus's ideas.