[dragonwriter]

> I'm a firm believer that a "ghost in the machine" doesn't exist, will never exist, and is impossible to create.

If that's true, there is no ghost in us, just the meat machine that verifiably exists, so there is no reason to dismiss human-equivalent AI.

[hprotagonist]

“my wooden doll will never become a real boy; therefore, nihilism! People are an illusion too!! That makes sense. I (who doesn’t exist) said it, so you (who also don’t exist) can trust me”

What hubris.

[0des]

There is entropy in everything. We will never create anything but our best attempt at a digital humonculous, an effigy to our distorted self perceptions. Machines will never be human, but they may succeed in fooling humans into believing that.

[woojoo666]

If we can simulate physics, can we simulate humans? Or do you perhaps believe we will never be able to simulate physics to a degree necessary to simulate humans

[0des]

I think we could make a primitive simulation of physics, but that is mighty presumptive because how much do we still not know of physics, and how much do we think we know because it is the best explanation we have right now? When you step away from equations, everything gets real fucky very fast, because there's a lot that is subject to conjecture and interpretation. How do you teach a computer nuance?

[taylodl]

How do you teach a person nuance?

[tasuki]

What is the magic sauce that makes us different?