He 85 years old now. I don't think it is "ageist" to say that he is probably not anymore at the absolute height of his cognitive abilities and a little bit stuck in his ways. That's just a normal result of getting old.
I'm sure if he now was half his current age, he would be very interested in AI. Instead of approvingly citing Gary Marcus, he would perhaps try to improve the transformer algorithm or something like that.
Edit: Though I might be mistaken here, see his quote about email below.
I find your multiple agist comments totally unnecessary. Just because he's 85, it doesn't mean he couldn't be "on top" of things or that his mental faculties are necessarily greatly declining, or that he is necessarily stuck in his ways. There are plenty of sharp 85 year olds who are at the forefront of their fields and keep an open mind. Is it more likely that an 85 year old has declining mental faculties and is a little stuck in patterns than a 25 year old? Yes, of course. Just like it's more likely that a 25 year old doesn't have as much knowledge as an 85 year old. But there are plenty of 25 year olds who do in some specific field. The point is you don't know his mental state, him the individual, and you're making generalizations and questions just based on his age.
I go the other way and suspect that his age gives him the insight to more accurately gauge the importance of this current AI than perhaps we youngsters can.
I don't know, i read it as "might be important but outside of my area of interests". He's working on more fundamental things and might not be interested in applications, doesn't mean that some application or downstream technology is unimporant for the rest of the world.
I'm sure if he now was half his current age, he would be very interested in AI. Instead of approvingly citing Gary Marcus, he would perhaps try to improve the transformer algorithm or something like that.
Edit: Though I might be mistaken here, see his quote about email below.