I know giving just one example doesn't perhaps sound very convincing on it's own. But here it is: he thinkshe can debunk the whole idea of AI in a matter of a few lines, literally - when the brilliant Roger Penrose has spent two books trying to very carefully show what is wrong with the AI project and what still needs to be discovered in Physics. Zhai doesn't seem to realise that in his"argument", he has assumed the very thing he is trying to prove.

Moreover, he doesn't credibly single out what makes machines different from people, which Penrose is at pains to do, very carefully. Penrose leaves open the possibility that we might succeed at AI if we understand the amazing and mysterious laws at work in the human brain - if indeed there are laws operating at all - they would have to be quite unlike any other physical law we know of now, including the weirdest of quantum mechanical laws. Zhai slams the door shut completely, with no appreciation for the benefits and power of science.

Believe me, I'm not rejecting this book because I didn't understand it. On the contrary, what little I read was trifilingly easy to understand, but clearly full of holes. The author simply does not know how to string together a coherent argument.