If that was your point, you could have resolved this in one article whose thesis is just, "Hey, like you already know, MML is a superior method of rationality compared to traditional science. [Here's a review of MML.] Behold, the best work in computer vision ignores it! Look how much better you'd do, just by reading this site!"

You didn't need to go into all the fluff about AI's advances and failures, what's wrong with science, blah blah blah.

(Not to say this doesn't benefit you; you seem to get net positive karma, with the x10 modifier, each time you draw this out to yet another post, despite not presenting anything new.)

Of course, I thought your original motivation for this series was to explain what super-powerful epistemology it is babies must be using to be able to go from a near-blank slate[1] to solving AI-complete problems on limited empirical data, and how we can replicate that. And you haven't even touched that one.

[1] which I, and the best scientific research, dispute is an accurate characterization of babies