In this excerpt there is something very misleading
The principle behind Weak AI is simply the fact that machines can be made to act as if they are intelligent. For example, when a human player plays chess against a computer, the human player may feel as if the computer is actually making impressive moves. But the chess application is not thinking and planning at all. All the moves it makes are previously fed in to the computer by a human and that is how it is ensured that the software will make the right moves at the right times.
Intelligent systems do not in general make use of a look up table. For example, the first chess computer Deep Blue made use of complex evaluation functions.
Neural networks could be trained to act as these evaluation functions.
Additionally, there are planning agents - this is a very large sub-field in AI.
Below again the article mistakes all artificial agents for simple deterministic Turing-like machines
Weak AI is focused towards the technology which is capable of carrying out pre-planned moves based on some rules and applying these to achieve a certain goal but, Strong AI is based on coming up with a technology that can think and function very similar to humans.
A highly recommended book is "Artificial Intelligence: A modern Approach." This reference covers many important sub-fields of AI and provides enough information to realize when people have mistaken the operations of their laptop as the final measure of artificial agency.
Here Comes the hand waving
The strong vs weak AI dichotomy is fueled by what appears to be a fundamental question: Is there something "special" about humanity that sets us apart from the rest of the material realm?
If we are just a complex arrangement of matter with no metaphysical properties then in theory we only need to solve two problems for strong AI:
- Powerful enough hardware
- Knowing how to correctly assemble said hardware
Justification of 1 & 2:
In the absence of metaphysical properties, we know that a correct arrangement of matter will result in the epiphenomenal emergence of human like experience - this idea is strongly supported by Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution.
Thus, all that is left is finding how to correctly arrange matter (hardware) so as to ensure said emergence.
Though, this philosophical thread quickly descends into the rabbit hole where we must tread softly when discussing whether a synthesized agent actually has qualia. Subjectivity is arguably the fundamental characteristic of human experience and we can't even assure ourselves that another human has this - we just accept that they do.
I hope that I have clarified where the science and philosophy stand.