I disagree somewhat . You can argue the exact opposite way exploring the possibilities of current techniques , and when you hit a limit , then yay ! Even in the winter scenario , when you hit a limit , you ask yourself if that is a limit that can be overcome . If you let ' s say prove that you can ' t do it with a certain class of methods , that immediately opens up the questions about other classes of methods . It also makes sense to focus all or most research efforts on problems where we have hit limits , if solving that problem is identified as a bottleneck to ' solving intelligence ', as this is your current best chance at proving the winter thesis . On the other hand , if you focus on solving intelligence without a concrete goal , if you hit a limit , you might stop , and move a more green field area , where you won ' t hit a limit for a while .