Currently weak AI is winning, but you forget that weak AI has always historically won. The annals of history ( as in the last ~100 years :P ) are littered with field attempts at finding "consciousness" and mixing neuroscience with philosophy with the occasional mathematician and once in a blue moon a CS...

My skepticism comes less from a hatred of "Strong AI" and more from the fact that it has been promised over and over again with no results to show for it. In addition, every time "weak AI" makes progress, there's always someone who writes an article bashing the progress of "weak AI" and saying "it isn't REAL AI (tm)".

This is kind of similar to the reason I dislike neuromorphic architectures, you can't just assume that you're right and look down upon all others, you need to show results if you want to do that.

>My skepticism comes less from a hatred of "Strong AI" and more from the fact that it has been promised over and over again with no results to show for it.

Could that just be because Strong AI is much, much more difficult to achieve than Weak AI? And not that it is less valuable an end to pursue than Weak AI?

In other words, does the value of one vs. the other necessarily correlate to our previous success in one vs. the other?

That isn't the common distinction made between weak and strong AI. Until we know what causes the internal point of view, it's conceivable that an AI could exhibit superhuman intelligence, as viewed from the outside, without itself having any view from the inside.

There is also the other form of AI, which is Augmented Intelligence, which focuses on augmenting human intelligence, not reproducing or replacing it.

But weak AI might be included in that.