Is the dumbest thing I've read in this thread. Sandboxes still allow for interoperation and file/data sharing between apps.
Don't be stupid. Real life example: On a work trip, a colleague of mine needed to send a few spreadsheets back to his office. He had an iPhone and a laptop. I had a laptop and a BlackBerry. We pulled over at the nearest town, hoping for wifi at one of the big chain restaurants. Well, no wifi was available at the first couple places we tried and he was running out of time. The obvious solution would be to copy the file to his iPhone and send the email from there. That was clearly impossible for him, given the absurd FS limitations imposed by iOS. I connected my BB via USB to his laptop, copied the files and send the email on his behalf.
This is just one of zillions of examples of where iOS's fear that users might be confused by having access to the file system leads to simple tasks becoming unnecessarily difficult or impossible.
it's certainly possible, because people are doing it
I could tap out a novel with a telegraph key too, that doesn't mean it's just as good as a full-sized keyboard. I don't have the time nor the inclination to force a pitifully inadequate tool into to my workflow. See, "can be done" is not the same as "can be done well". Of course, with the iPad you don't even get to "can be done" for many common tasks!
no one is arguing that the iPad should replace the PC for everyone
Are sure about at? You should read this thread!
But I find the iPad indispensable all the same, because anyone who creates knows that being a good creator means consuming a lot, and the iPad is an outstanding way to brainstorm, research, and do rudimentary design.
I'll bet that you're forcing ti in to your workflow, rather than it being an "indispensable" part. Tablets are wretched for research (which requires lots of writing and text manipulation) and design (in every way I can think of, at least. You left this ambiguous) The iPad is even less suitable than other offerings due to it's piss-poor multitasking facilities and the file system issues I mentioned earlier.
I'd urge you to think long and hard about that. Is your tablet actually better for the tasks your using it for than alternatives or are you seeking out places you can use it to justify the cost or just because you like tablets and want to integrate their use in to your work?
You did have a choice, and you did write it. Determinism doesn't mean you didn't have a choice.
Perhaps you're confused about what determinism means? There's no choice at all in the parent's world. The commitment made to that course of action is, as far as the parent is concerned, beyond my control.
But until then, you're given the same inputs, and you're making the same choice. Every time.
That's determinism, though you seem to have an odd idea about what the word "choice" means. If I drop a coin, would you use the term "choice" to describe its orientation upon landing? Of course not! In the wacky world of the proud determinist, you, like the coin, are incapable of choosing. To have the ability to choose is to have agency, which the parent flat-out denies.
In other words, why is choice more meaningful if it's random and causeless?
Okay, philosophy 101. An element of randomness doesn't buy you freedom. See any undergraduate textbook.
See, it doesn't matter whether or not the parents actions are wholly or partially (by the introduction of some random element) determined. If he's right, they're 100% outside his control in either case. Back on topic... the missed point:
The parent denies his own agency, yet takes credit for actions by which he was no more than a passive observer. Imagine watching a live news broadcast where the police safely end a dangerous stand-off with some bank robbers. Now imagine that you take credit for saving the hostages. That's essentially what the parent is doing. It's funny because it's so absurd. That's why I was poking fun at him.
I find it funny that people are proud of the fact that they don't believe in free will -- as if they believed they had anything to do with it! So proud, in fact, that they brag about how superior they for coming to such a conclusion, even though they claim it was well outside their nonexistent influence!
In a bizarre contradiction, they take credit for all their accomplishments and the cultivation of their positive traits and beliefs even though they claim to believe they were involved only as a passive observer!
Don't like this post? Don't complain to me. Lacking free will, I had no choice but to write it. Like all things I've ever said or done, it was beyond my control.
The RNG is irrelevant, as it's just another input. The computer acts deterministically, given the same input (which includes the data from the RNG), and you'll get the same output.
Changing the level of description to better suit your intuitions doesn't change that simple fact.
This might help: Remember when you were first learning about Turing machines and wondered (or had a classmate wonder out-loud) how they could cope with something like a GUI where the computer is constantly responding to new input from the user? Remember realizing that those user inputs could be prerecorded on the tape and it wouldn't make a lick of difference? It's the same idea.
Searle's response that the the assumption that other people are conscious is necessarily axiomatic is either a strong indication that his definition of consciousness irrelevant to science (faith in the consciousness of others (or even the self) is a not a falsifiable position)
The alternative is to embrace Solipsism! You're welcome to go there if you like, but then I'd have to wonder (not that you'd believe it!) as to why you've bothered to participate on a forum.
(or even the self)
You haven't quite thought that one through. See Descartes, if you're really stuck.
the validity of the CR thought experiment depends upon the false premise that all computation is necessarily syntactic.
False? You'd better let someone know right away! Apparently, the whole world's missed out on that bit. Just think of the diversity of new fields you'll start with what is, to you, an obvious concept!
Neural net modeling, which was the original topic of this discussion, is essentially focused on studying non-syntactic computation.
Ah, I see. You're just confused. That's okay, you won't be the first tricked by intuition.
Some other stuff... look up multiple realizability, etc.
You know what, forget all this. We're in Philo 101 territory here, and I'm not terribly interested to a long and boring discussion where I essentially tell you to look up this or that in a text book. If you couldn't tell, I've been in a rather foul mood for the past few days. I'm clearly incapable of writing anything that isn't dismissive or snarky in that condition. (I'm assuming that you deserve better treatment than I'm prepared to offer.)
If you're genuinely interested in the subject, there are better options than wikipedia and the slashdot comments section. I did a search for you and found a couple complete undergrad lecture series from Searle and Kihlstrom (both at UC Berkeley ) which should get you up to speed. Well, at least past all the boring beginner stuff.
The Chinese Room argument is, at its core, an appeal to consciousness/intelligence as a construct that is special and cannot be considered a simple emergent effect of the physical system of the brain
Wow, you have absolutely no idea!
The core of the argument is that you can't get semantic content from purely syntactic content. Ultimately, it's an attack on computationalism, and a damn good one.
You'll find tons of nonsense attacking the CRA (as it's obvious that you have!) Yet you'll find very little that attempts to address the core of the argument. I can think of exactly one paper, by the famous David Chalmers, yet it gets practically no attention because the argument is pitifully flawed.
Now, if you float in "skeptical" or AI circles, you'll find a wealth of total nonsense on various internet forums about the CRA, which is exactly what you seem to ahve done here.
and cannot be considered a simple emergent effect of the physical system of the brain
No, no, no, no, no! You're just spouting absurd nonsense! (FYI, Epiphenomenalism is an entirely different topic, quite unrelated to the CRA. It's as dead as computationalism, sure, but for different reasons.)
Anyhow, Searle concludes, if you've read and understand any of his relevant papers, that whatever it is that the brain does to bring about consciousness, it cannot be mere computation. That is, there must be something else the brain does. There is no appeal to magic; he assumes mind=brain from the get-go.
The CRA the simplest damn thing you'll find in philosophy of mind. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
. The Chinese Room argument does not show what you think at all, though that is a common misinterpretation.
I guess Searle doesn't understand his own argument? My flippant tone notwithstanding, I'm all but plagiarizing him!
As for "common" you're very mistaken. What's common is total nonsense like what you've presented here. I blame a mixture of ignorance and fear for that.
Searle's Chinese Room argument to Searle's satisfaction, therefore, is not prima facie evidence that neural net modeling as an approach cannot eventually create intelligence.
In the case of the Chinese room, it does indeed show that purely computational approaches can not be sufficient. To proceed anyway, operating under the irrational belief that the problem will vanish by magic is delusional.
The challenge is yours. If you can knock down Searle, fame and fortune await. You'll be guaranteed a place in the textbooks.
Funny, that no one's managed it yet. If it were as simple as you seem to believe, don't you think someone would have taken a few weeks to put out a paper that would, without question, make their career?
I'll keep an eye out for your groundbreaking essay.
Your assertion that a 'cargo cult' approach cannot achieve a given effect contains the assumption that it is necessary to first develop an accurate understanding of why and how a potential mechanism works before it can be implemented.
No. You came up with that all on your own.
To add: I mention "long-standing problems" which suggest that the effort in question is ultimately futile. These problems are well-established and fundamental to the AGI problem the summary implies that we're on the brink of solving. To ignore them expect that those problems will just vanish if we just build a better bamboo airplane is nothing short of magical thinking.
With respect to the neuron modeling approach
You mean the construction of bamboo airplanes and dirt runways? I won't argue their utility, but it's pretty evident that they'll not get us any closer to AGI (for the reasons hinted at earlier.) To believe that the approach in question will ultimately result in "creating synthetic intelligence" is not merely belief without evidence, it's belief in face of evidence to the contrary!
Searle's nonsense, eh? There's a reason that he's Slusser professor of philosophy at U.C. Berkeley and why his work on AI stands strong today -- even after 30 years of constant assault.
No one is laughing at Searle except those who feel threatened by the problem he presents. If he were a just another easy-to-dismiss nut, we wouldn't still be talking about his 1980 paper (and related subsequent papers) today. Nor would he wouldn't hold such an esteemed position at one of the worlds finest institutions.
If you think Searle's work is nonsense, fame and fortune (well, at least fame) can be yours. All you need do is publish a paper that definitively abolishes Searle's argument. (If it's nonsense that any serious academic would do well to disassociate themselves from, why hasn't anyone managed it after more than 30 years? Many big names have tried, yet all have failed. Taking down that giant would make anyone's career, after all.)
Are you a follower of Ray Kurzweil, by any chance? I only ask because I don't often see Searle dismissed outright by anyone competent unless they also happen to be a singularity nut.
I'm saying that it's unsolved (er, well, I thought that would go without saying!) and that, at present, it and similar problems strongly suggest that this type of approach is fundamentally flawed.
My main point was that it's unreasonable to believe that those problems will be solved by magic and wishful thinking. This cargo-cult approach to AI purports to do just that. (If we just ignore the problems hard enough, technology will deliver us!)
Your point, if we can recreate a 100,000 neuron brain, it will be tiny amount of time before we can model a full human brain an beyond. Do you really think AI will not follow a moore type law? It will probably be even more aggressive.
Neat. Cargo-cult AI is still around.
Forget the long-standing problems that make this approach a non-starter. Technology is magical! The singularity is near!
So, I apparently paid more for it that I did? Fine, do a google search. There are plenty of others that fit the bill just as well:)
Keyboard seems to work fine. My wife seems to think it's better than her old laptop keyboard. Again, it completely destroys the BT keyboard in question.
Display looks okay to me. It's better than the iPad 2 / iPad mini display to which you're making your comparison, which is all that matters here.
Speakers? Not the best, but kick the crap out of the iPad. Then again, so does my PlayBook and Z10. It's not hard to best the iPad there.
Memory, drive space, CPU, all well ahead of the iPad. No big surprise.
Front Camera? Well, you got me there! 0.3 -- Just like the iPad 2!
To the parents point: You can get two computers with better specs for the price of an iPad +keyboard. You can do a helluva lot more with them.as well. If you think those computers are "crappy" then you must not think too much of the iPad!
On specs, there isn't any room for interpretation. The parent is objectively correct Why are you arguing this?
The number of touch typists are pretty slim. I don't know anyone at work, other than a couple secretaries that would have a desktop only, who can touch type.
Sorry, where do you work? I know very few people who can't touch-type, I can't think of any work mates who lack that skill.
It's been compulsory in schools (at least in my area) for a long time now. Of course, they'd have a difficult time getting through school without that skill, even the elementary school kids are required to type some assignments these days.
I paid $230 for an Acer Aspire One 722 last December to replace my wife's work computer. Feel free to compare specs, though you won't like what you see.
A quick search turns up quite a few notebooks in the $200-$235 range that'll make the parents point nicely.
Let's be honest. The iPad route gives you an under-spec'd and over-priced setup that lacks many useful and important features. For half the price of even your suggested bottom-of-the-barrel iPad setup you can get a much more powerful laptop of good quality.
The default security in place in no way limits professionals or creative users.
Professionals and creative people beg to differ!
The file system restrictions alone make it unsuitable for all but the most casual of casual users. No, iCloud is in no way an adequate replacement -- not even close.
Well, you'd know that if you were a professional or creative person.
What you said is far more true of the Android user who can use the system to the fullest, but that ceiling is far lower than it is with any iOS device.
What does this even mean? Are you saying that Apple products are so magical that they can do more (despite with their oppressive restrictions and last-gen hardware) than the lasted and greatest hardware with few to no restrictions?
Slashdot Mirror
The trouble, of course, is that their lowest price was higher than the previous lowest price.
Well said.
It's bad science and bad philosophy all around.
I was hoping for the story of Mel, a real programmer.
On the article, it's fantastic. It puts me in mind of First & Third almost FORTH and the recent Fixing E.T. hack.
Yeah, accessibility is for losers!
Is the dumbest thing I've read in this thread. Sandboxes still allow for interoperation and file/data sharing between apps.
Don't be stupid. Real life example: On a work trip, a colleague of mine needed to send a few spreadsheets back to his office. He had an iPhone and a laptop. I had a laptop and a BlackBerry. We pulled over at the nearest town, hoping for wifi at one of the big chain restaurants. Well, no wifi was available at the first couple places we tried and he was running out of time. The obvious solution would be to copy the file to his iPhone and send the email from there. That was clearly impossible for him, given the absurd FS limitations imposed by iOS. I connected my BB via USB to his laptop, copied the files and send the email on his behalf.
This is just one of zillions of examples of where iOS's fear that users might be confused by having access to the file system leads to simple tasks becoming unnecessarily difficult or impossible.
it's certainly possible, because people are doing it
I could tap out a novel with a telegraph key too, that doesn't mean it's just as good as a full-sized keyboard. I don't have the time nor the inclination to force a pitifully inadequate tool into to my workflow. See, "can be done" is not the same as "can be done well". Of course, with the iPad you don't even get to "can be done" for many common tasks!
no one is arguing that the iPad should replace the PC for everyone
Are sure about at? You should read this thread!
But I find the iPad indispensable all the same, because anyone who creates knows that being a good creator means consuming a lot, and the iPad is an outstanding way to brainstorm, research, and do rudimentary design.
I'll bet that you're forcing ti in to your workflow, rather than it being an "indispensable" part. Tablets are wretched for research (which requires lots of writing and text manipulation) and design (in every way I can think of, at least. You left this ambiguous) The iPad is even less suitable than other offerings due to it's piss-poor multitasking facilities and the file system issues I mentioned earlier.
I'd urge you to think long and hard about that. Is your tablet actually better for the tasks your using it for than alternatives or are you seeking out places you can use it to justify the cost or just because you like tablets and want to integrate their use in to your work?
You're confused
You did have a choice, and you did write it. Determinism doesn't mean you didn't have a choice.
Perhaps you're confused about what determinism means? There's no choice at all in the parent's world. The commitment made to that course of action is, as far as the parent is concerned, beyond my control.
But until then, you're given the same inputs, and you're making the same choice. Every time.
That's determinism, though you seem to have an odd idea about what the word "choice" means. If I drop a coin, would you use the term "choice" to describe its orientation upon landing? Of course not! In the wacky world of the proud determinist, you, like the coin, are incapable of choosing. To have the ability to choose is to have agency, which the parent flat-out denies.
In other words, why is choice more meaningful if it's random and causeless?
Okay, philosophy 101. An element of randomness doesn't buy you freedom. See any undergraduate textbook.
See, it doesn't matter whether or not the parents actions are wholly or partially (by the introduction of some random element) determined. If he's right, they're 100% outside his control in either case. Back on topic ... the missed point:
The parent denies his own agency, yet takes credit for actions by which he was no more than a passive observer. Imagine watching a live news broadcast where the police safely end a dangerous stand-off with some bank robbers. Now imagine that you take credit for saving the hostages. That's essentially what the parent is doing. It's funny because it's so absurd. That's why I was poking fun at him.
I find it funny that people are proud of the fact that they don't believe in free will -- as if they believed they had anything to do with it! So proud, in fact, that they brag about how superior they for coming to such a conclusion, even though they claim it was well outside their nonexistent influence!
In a bizarre contradiction, they take credit for all their accomplishments and the cultivation of their positive traits and beliefs even though they claim to believe they were involved only as a passive observer!
Don't like this post? Don't complain to me. Lacking free will, I had no choice but to write it. Like all things I've ever said or done, it was beyond my control.
Did everyone forget their basic computer science?
The RNG is irrelevant, as it's just another input. The computer acts deterministically, given the same input (which includes the data from the RNG), and you'll get the same output.
Changing the level of description to better suit your intuitions doesn't change that simple fact.
This might help: Remember when you were first learning about Turing machines and wondered (or had a classmate wonder out-loud) how they could cope with something like a GUI where the computer is constantly responding to new input from the user? Remember realizing that those user inputs could be prerecorded on the tape and it wouldn't make a lick of difference? It's the same idea.
Searle's response that the the assumption that other people are conscious is necessarily axiomatic is either a strong indication that his definition of consciousness irrelevant to science (faith in the consciousness of others (or even the self) is a not a falsifiable position)
The alternative is to embrace Solipsism! You're welcome to go there if you like, but then I'd have to wonder (not that you'd believe it!) as to why you've bothered to participate on a forum.
(or even the self)
You haven't quite thought that one through. See Descartes, if you're really stuck.
the validity of the CR thought experiment depends upon the false premise that all computation is necessarily syntactic.
False? You'd better let someone know right away! Apparently, the whole world's missed out on that bit. Just think of the diversity of new fields you'll start with what is, to you, an obvious concept!
Neural net modeling, which was the original topic of this discussion, is essentially focused on studying non-syntactic computation.
Ah, I see. You're just confused. That's okay, you won't be the first tricked by intuition.
Some other stuff ... look up multiple realizability, etc.
You know what, forget all this. We're in Philo 101 territory here, and I'm not terribly interested to a long and boring discussion where I essentially tell you to look up this or that in a text book. If you couldn't tell, I've been in a rather foul mood for the past few days. I'm clearly incapable of writing anything that isn't dismissive or snarky in that condition. (I'm assuming that you deserve better treatment than I'm prepared to offer.)
If you're genuinely interested in the subject, there are better options than wikipedia and the slashdot comments section. I did a search for you and found a couple complete undergrad lecture series from Searle and Kihlstrom (both at UC Berkeley ) which should get you up to speed. Well, at least past all the boring beginner stuff.
Philosophy of Mind
Scientific Approaches to Consciousness
Hope that helps.
The Chinese Room argument is, at its core, an appeal to consciousness/intelligence as a construct that is special and cannot be considered a simple emergent effect of the physical system of the brain
Wow, you have absolutely no idea!
The core of the argument is that you can't get semantic content from purely syntactic content. Ultimately, it's an attack on computationalism, and a damn good one.
You'll find tons of nonsense attacking the CRA (as it's obvious that you have!) Yet you'll find very little that attempts to address the core of the argument. I can think of exactly one paper, by the famous David Chalmers, yet it gets practically no attention because the argument is pitifully flawed.
Now, if you float in "skeptical" or AI circles, you'll find a wealth of total nonsense on various internet forums about the CRA, which is exactly what you seem to ahve done here.
and cannot be considered a simple emergent effect of the physical system of the brain
No, no, no, no, no! You're just spouting absurd nonsense! (FYI, Epiphenomenalism is an entirely different topic, quite unrelated to the CRA. It's as dead as computationalism, sure, but for different reasons.)
Anyhow, Searle concludes, if you've read and understand any of his relevant papers, that whatever it is that the brain does to bring about consciousness, it cannot be mere computation. That is, there must be something else the brain does. There is no appeal to magic; he assumes mind=brain from the get-go.
The CRA the simplest damn thing you'll find in philosophy of mind. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?
. The Chinese Room argument does not show what you think at all, though that is a common misinterpretation.
I guess Searle doesn't understand his own argument? My flippant tone notwithstanding, I'm all but plagiarizing him!
As for "common" you're very mistaken. What's common is total nonsense like what you've presented here. I blame a mixture of ignorance and fear for that.
Searle's Chinese Room argument to Searle's satisfaction, therefore, is not prima facie evidence that neural net modeling as an approach cannot eventually create intelligence.
In the case of the Chinese room, it does indeed show that purely computational approaches can not be sufficient. To proceed anyway, operating under the irrational belief that the problem will vanish by magic is delusional.
The challenge is yours. If you can knock down Searle, fame and fortune await. You'll be guaranteed a place in the textbooks.
Funny, that no one's managed it yet. If it were as simple as you seem to believe, don't you think someone would have taken a few weeks to put out a paper that would, without question, make their career?
I'll keep an eye out for your groundbreaking essay.
You singularity nuts are so very sad...
If the made a copy of the brain and it didn't work, then it would be a cargo cult.
Which is exactly what the article implies.
Not only do you not seem to now what a cargo cult is,
Funny, you seem to think I know what a cargo cult is.
Your assertion that a 'cargo cult' approach cannot achieve a given effect contains the assumption that it is necessary to first develop an accurate understanding of why and how a potential mechanism works before it can be implemented.
No. You came up with that all on your own.
To add: I mention "long-standing problems" which suggest that the effort in question is ultimately futile. These problems are well-established and fundamental to the AGI problem the summary implies that we're on the brink of solving. To ignore them expect that those problems will just vanish if we just build a better bamboo airplane is nothing short of magical thinking.
With respect to the neuron modeling approach
You mean the construction of bamboo airplanes and dirt runways? I won't argue their utility, but it's pretty evident that they'll not get us any closer to AGI (for the reasons hinted at earlier.) To believe that the approach in question will ultimately result in "creating synthetic intelligence" is not merely belief without evidence, it's belief in face of evidence to the contrary!
Searle's nonsense, eh? There's a reason that he's Slusser professor of philosophy at U.C. Berkeley and why his work on AI stands strong today -- even after 30 years of constant assault.
No one is laughing at Searle except those who feel threatened by the problem he presents. If he were a just another easy-to-dismiss nut, we wouldn't still be talking about his 1980 paper (and related subsequent papers) today. Nor would he wouldn't hold such an esteemed position at one of the worlds finest institutions.
If you think Searle's work is nonsense, fame and fortune (well, at least fame) can be yours. All you need do is publish a paper that definitively abolishes Searle's argument. (If it's nonsense that any serious academic would do well to disassociate themselves from, why hasn't anyone managed it after more than 30 years? Many big names have tried, yet all have failed. Taking down that giant would make anyone's career, after all.)
Are you a follower of Ray Kurzweil, by any chance? I only ask because I don't often see Searle dismissed outright by anyone competent unless they also happen to be a singularity nut.
I'm saying that it's unsolved (er, well, I thought that would go without saying!) and that, at present, it and similar problems strongly suggest that this type of approach is fundamentally flawed.
My main point was that it's unreasonable to believe that those problems will be solved by magic and wishful thinking. This cargo-cult approach to AI purports to do just that. (If we just ignore the problems hard enough, technology will deliver us!)
Watson is neat. It's also completely irrelevant to both the topic and my post.
You can start with the symbol grounding problem and work your way up.
Oh, to your links, there's also a reason I called it "cargo-cult AI". Should be obvious why, yes?
Your point, if we can recreate a 100,000 neuron brain, it will be tiny amount of time before we can model a full human brain an beyond. Do you really think AI will not follow a moore type law? It will probably be even more aggressive.
Neat. Cargo-cult AI is still around.
Forget the long-standing problems that make this approach a non-starter. Technology is magical! The singularity is near!
So, I apparently paid more for it that I did? Fine, do a google search. There are plenty of others that fit the bill just as well :)
Keyboard seems to work fine. My wife seems to think it's better than her old laptop keyboard. Again, it completely destroys the BT keyboard in question.
Display looks okay to me. It's better than the iPad 2 / iPad mini display to which you're making your comparison, which is all that matters here.
Speakers? Not the best, but kick the crap out of the iPad. Then again, so does my PlayBook and Z10. It's not hard to best the iPad there.
Memory, drive space, CPU, all well ahead of the iPad. No big surprise.
Front Camera? Well, you got me there! 0.3 -- Just like the iPad 2!
To the parents point: You can get two computers with better specs for the price of an iPad +keyboard. You can do a helluva lot more with them.as well. If you think those computers are "crappy" then you must not think too much of the iPad!
On specs, there isn't any room for interpretation. The parent is objectively correct Why are you arguing this?
Quick question: Did you type your last response on an iPad? Why or why not?
The number of touch typists are pretty slim. I don't know anyone at work, other than a couple secretaries that would have a desktop only, who can touch type.
Sorry, where do you work? I know very few people who can't touch-type, I can't think of any work mates who lack that skill.
It's been compulsory in schools (at least in my area) for a long time now. Of course, they'd have a difficult time getting through school without that skill, even the elementary school kids are required to type some assignments these days.
I paid $230 for an Acer Aspire One 722 last December to replace my wife's work computer. Feel free to compare specs, though you won't like what you see.
A quick search turns up quite a few notebooks in the $200-$235 range that'll make the parents point nicely.
Let's be honest. The iPad route gives you an under-spec'd and over-priced setup that lacks many useful and important features. For half the price of even your suggested bottom-of-the-barrel iPad setup you can get a much more powerful laptop of good quality.
Why are we even playing this game?
The default security in place in no way limits professionals or creative users.
Professionals and creative people beg to differ!
The file system restrictions alone make it unsuitable for all but the most casual of casual users. No, iCloud is in no way an adequate replacement -- not even close.
Well, you'd know that if you were a professional or creative person.
What you said is far more true of the Android user who can use the system to the fullest, but that ceiling is far lower than it is with any iOS device.
What does this even mean? Are you saying that Apple products are so magical that they can do more (despite with their oppressive restrictions and last-gen hardware) than the lasted and greatest hardware with few to no restrictions?
That's ... well ... just delusional.