[Doyce]

My education is in automation robotics so many of my peers / friends work within the AI or Quantum Computing fields and I'm always bending their ears on this topic.I say that as a preface because I always stress to people that automation robotics engineer sounds a whole lot fancier then it really is. I'll also state that I do not consider LaMDA being sentient possible.

It's ironic that she describes how a person builds knowledge and can access that learned information based on things like current topic, points being made, and mixing it all together to make for creative thought based on those factors and produce a conversation with another person. But if an AI system does the exact same thing it is simply using pieces of it's database to try to best answer your point/question as best as it can as it relates to being understood and concise. I'm not a renowned child development psychologist as the author of the article is but learning is learning to me. It's ironic that she used that stance to try to differentiate the two since all those neural network systems are literally designed to use the same tools that a child would in building that knowledge of vocabulary and interaction.

That said, she's not wrong. She's just not right as it relates to her main point. AI systems won't rival the human brain until we can give it access to a major upgrade in computational power, which is why I follow quantum computing lock step with AI news. That would give it more "brain power" then a person could ever hope to have and will give us AGI. Once AGI is reached and it can help with further processing technology ASI is soon to follow (I'm one of the, "It's far more a difficult journey from ANI to AGI, then it is from AGI to ASI")