Understanding Moravec's Paradox

Why the name „Moravec“ is two times correct in this article, but it is misspelled if it is a link text.

Any attention on Moravec's paradox is good imo because it is important.

That said, the article starts with several problems.

1) Claims that it isn't a paradox, which is just silly. A paradox is a counter-intuitive result. The result is generally counter-intuitive whatever explanation you give. Zeno's paradox remains a paradox despite calculus essentially explaining it, etc.

2) Calls the article "Understanding Moravec's Paradox" when it should be called "My Explanation of Moravec's Paradox".

3) The author's final explanation seems kind of simplistic; "Human activities just have a large search space". IDK. Human activity sometimes does still in things that aren't walking also. I mean, "not enough data" is an explanation why neural networks can't do a bunch of things. But not all programs are neural networks. One of the things humans are really good at is learning things from a few examples. A serious explanation of Moravec's Paradox would have to explain this as well imo.

Put all the bad robots in jail, for UBI.

EDIT: someone has to order the license plates