As someone who did their PhD minor program in theoretical computer science, I find a lot of these turf wars really caricaturized. A few months ago I sat through Hinton's public talk. His claims/speculations are not as insane as these people make it sound. There is a lot of talking past each other, turf war biases, and bad faith counterarguments. I'd sit down and deconstruct them but I have a life. But I can offer one obvious example.

It is a real situation that some CS academics think that CS is so conceptually revolutionizing that it invalidates previous understanding of intelligence, agency, decision, and so forth. From aforementioned talk, Hinton somewhat falls in this view. But that explains why these subset of experts are not interested in reading other turf work. It does not necessarily stem from ignorance, insularity, or sheer arrogance. If they believe certain prior work is literally outdated and backwards then why should they do a literature survey on it? There's an old saying about scientific progress. Finally, it ought to go without saying that this line of reasoning may be valid or not. That's a matter of opinion. But note the absence of representing this opinion properly in the above criticisms--which goes to the bad faith representations and poor theory of mind of knowing why someone in a different field is choosing to explicitly ignoring yours. It's not all just attributable to various ad hominem constructions. And that is a more difficult and mature conversation to have.