[joe_the_user]

The thing about these arguments for the impossibility of AI/AGI is that they inherently rest on the idea that they know what "human intelligence". So they have the same weaknesses as arguments project a set timeline for AGI.

We won't build a duplicate of the human brain - unless we have AGI first to tell us how. But we really don't know what portions of the human brain are needed for useful AGI.

You can look at GPT-3. On the one hand, never being reliable puts a crimp on practical applications. One the other hand, it does a lot of amazing things that seem human. I'd say that since we don't know where we're going in a profound way, we don't know how far we have to go.