[dcposch]

FWIW this is the same argument once made against human flight. In the late 19th century, there were a lot of debates in the form

> Clearly flight is possible, birds do it

> Sure but how/why is one of the many mysteries of the universe, one we will likely never solve.

"Man won't fly for a million years – to build a flying machine would require the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanics for 1-10 million years." - NYT 1903

[vikingerik]

The real answer to how birds fly is that they're extremely light weight so that wing muscles can lift them. Common pigeons or seagulls only weigh about 2 or 3 pounds. The largest birds of prey top out around 18. Anything heavier is flightless. A 150-pound human isn't getting anywhere on wing muscle power.

[ascar]

The largest Pterosaur are estimated to have had wingspans of more than 9m and weigh up to 250kg (550 pounds) and we believe they were able to fly. [1]

But that's not the most relevant point here. The fact that humans did achieve to fly, but through a different method than birds is exactly a supporting argument that we might achieve AGI with a different approach than how our brains do it.

There are countless similar examples. We see a natural phenomenon, we know it's possible and we find a way to replicate the desired effect (not the whole phenomenon) artificially. I haven't heard anything here that it will be any different for intelligence, except that we don't know how yet.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur_size

[freediver]

The chain of reasoning that everything observable in nature is replicable by humans would also imply us being able to replicate creation of a living cell from non living material and then endow that organism with consciousness.

Further more it would also imply us being able to replicate birth of stars, black holes, and "the big bang" itself.

I am not qualified enough to speak if there is anything fundamentally impossible with all of these, but that would basically make human race "God".

[ascar]

> us being able to replicate creation of a living cell from non living material and then endow that organism with consciousness.

Afaik we are very close to artificially creating living cells. This is one recent example [1]. The consciousness part is similar to AGI.

> Further more it would also imply us being able to replicate birth of stars, black holes, and "the big bang" itself.

Some things might be a logistical challenge rather than one of knowledge. Fusion energy attempts to replicate the way stars produce energy and we already managed to replicate the effect, we are just (many years) shy of maintaining it to produce positive energy.

But you might be right and some things are impossible to replicate. I'm much more inclined to believe we can't replicate the big bang than general intelligence as mother nature replicates general intelligence millions of times each day. And by now we started to have a discussion about believes rather than knowledge, which is a much more healthy way to put it, as we indeed don't know.

[1] https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2021/septem...

[freediver]

> Afaik we are very close to artificially creating living cells. This is one recent example [1].

I beg to differ. It may look impressive on the surface, just like GPT-3 looks impressive on the surface, but is far from the real thing. It is just another extension of the ladder to the Moon.

The effort described in the article is nowhere near a living cell. It lacks protein building and DNA/RNA mechanisms. They basically describe a group of nanomotors.

I can recommend watching James Tour on this very topic [1] and Stephen Meyer on the related topic of intelligent design [2]. Those two lectures were eye-opening for me learning more about this field. Note: both of them are self-confessed theist scientists which to me did not represent a problem (my viewes are agnostic, and it only made it more interesting as you rarely get to hear different views about these matters than pop-sci).

> The consciousness part is similar to AGI.

It is not clear what you mean by that. One thing is to build computer code and then have it manifest 'intelligence'. Whole another thing is doing same with organic matter that can not be 'programmed', even if we knew how to do it (let alone there is no evidence that 'programming' is responsible for consciousness at all to begin with).

This is also known as 'hard problem of consciousness' and David Chalmers is considered one of the leading experts in the field [3]. Basically smartest scientists in the world are clueless about this and do not know even where to begin, in many ways similar to AGI.

> Some things might be a logistical challenge rather than one of knowledge. Fusion energy attempts to replicate the way stars produce energy and we already managed to replicate the effect, we are just (many years) shy of maintaining it to produce positive energy.

I can see why one can have this position where it seems like we are making progress in everything we talked about, but that is the main punchline of the ladder to the Moon analogy. Indeed it is imaginable, and indeed every step makes us closer. But it does not mean we will ever reach it.

I agree with you that the discussion ultimately boils down to direction and strength of one's beliefs.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7Lww-sBPg

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pk9oDrpf6k

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5DfnIjZPGw

[inter_netuser]

Paper planes are over two thousand years old.

NYT is just the epitome of the dunning-kruger in the west.

[random314]

Argument by analogy is not much of an argument.

[barry-cotter]

More of one than ascar made.