Ok sorry for the unprompted rant but you're absolutely right, though it's far from "new" and not really a problem (IMHO). AI even beat neuroscience to this one, funnily enough! All of the below dyads are congruent:

  --- Phil & [Pre-]CogSci ---
  | rational  | intuitive     |
  | reason    | understanding | (Kant & Hegel's goofy wording)
  | deductive | inductive     |
  | animated  | automatic     | (from ~Aristotle, ultimately)
  | ~higher   | ~lower        | (as in "higher faculties")

  --- CS & AI ---
  | logical  | analogical |
  | symbolic | stochastic | 
  | Neats    | Scruffies  | (related academic 'camps')
  | ~deterministic | ~non-determnistic | (a common heuristic)
  | Good Ol' Fashioned AI (GOFAI) | Evil Datacenter AI (EDAI) | (a common honorific)

  --- Modern [Cog-]Neuro[-Psych] ---

  | slow thinking | fast thinking |
  | S2            | S1            |
  ...ok I assumed I knew more but maybe I don't? Would love to hear from experts!

  --- Colloquial ---
  | left brain   | right brain |
  | intelligence | wisdom      |
  | intention    | instinct    |
  | me           | AD[H]D      |

At least that's how I see it. Hopefully it goes without saying that there's plenty of nuance specific to each of those pairs, and that many of the relevant experts would balk at this broad characterization. That said... I'm right and they're wrong, I guess!

If anyone is in the mood to stomach a paper written by someone who did horrible things with Epstein a few decades later, this is sadly still the best in the biz: https://www.inf.ufsc.br/~mauro.roisenberg/ine6102/leituras/a...

If you prefer geniuses that aren't arguably monsters, this is the core of what Gary Marcus' "neurosymbolic" thing is about.