The noble anti-AI approach The human mind is not a machine. There are issues about the understanding of the fundamental physics of matter, touching on things which could relate to mind, if you study how Louis de Broglie (co-author of the core quantum theory) diverged from David Bohm's causal interpretation of quantum theory (which was rejected by de Broglie's pioneering friends) by rewriting half of it, in 1956 (in a manner ignored by the other authors of quantum theory) and onwards. In sum: the grand questions, also about what the mind is, are still open. There is no proof -- anywhere -- that the human mind and its intelligence and its empathic intelligence can ever be reduced to any chip or algorithm or manipulation of quantum mechanics in a laboratory or any combination of such. There are on the contrary core works which indicate that artificial intelligence is and will be a blatant illusion, and that the risk is solely that this illusion is not seen for what it is. (For some of these core works, cfr other texts linked to by the anti-AI search engine portal.) Humanity must take an anti-AI stance; journalists must refuse to use the scifi notion "AI" casually, as if it refers to a fact; and in general, we must prefer such approaches to computing which do not mimick mind and thus can contribute to a generally stupification of mankind. In this, we must stand up and assert that it is better to use mind and do things perhaps sometimes slightly slower than to not use mind and live by the dictatorship of machines. This is about believing in mind, insight, intuition, and a spontaniety which goes beyond mere machine, -- also as love, as action, whether in business life or in relationship or in sex. This is the noble anti-AI stance, and it gives great energy to live by it. --A.Tacoma, May 2015 (feel free to reproduce this when unchanged.)