[p-e-w]

> Programmer would be the last job to go

Nope. Experience has shown that tasks that require peak intellectual abilities in humans are actually very easy for computers to do. Computers were outperforming humans at calculation 80 years ago, and have been crushing grandmasters at chess since the 90s.

Meanwhile, controlling a robot to move efficiently, or reliably distinguishing everyday objects like cats and dogs, is still extremely challenging for current AIs, which require more data than any human could see in a thousand lifetimes to perform at a remotely adequate level.

It's "menial" jobs that will be the last to go. Because those rely on innate abilities grown over hundreds of millions of years of evolution. A task like programming that was only invented three generations ago is trivial by comparison.

[tekknik]

I agree with you for the most part, however the fact that humans can determine a cat from a chair by being shown one cat proves that humans receive more data than some AI with sensors.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your statement.

[p-e-w]

I believe the fact that humans can distinguish a cat from a chair after being shown just a single cat actually demonstrates that humans have much deeper insight into what a "concept" is than current AIs do.

If sensor data were the problem, computers could easily outperform humans since we have sensors that generate much more detailed data than the human senses: High-resolution cameras, multi-spectral and thermal imaging, x-rays, radar, etc.

The actual difference is that when shown a picture and told "this is a cat", humans already know what to look for. Even if a human has never seen a cat before, they will not, for example, examine the background of the photo, or the floor the cat is lying on. They will also instinctively derive analogies from similar animals they already know, and deduce lots of correct information about that "cat" without needing to be told explicitly.

[tekknik]

> The actual difference is that when shown a picture and told "this is a cat", humans already know what to look for.

Yes exactly. You’ll look for 4 legs, a tail, pointy ears and graceful movement. All of that is data you’ve registered by your (primarily one) senses (sensors). You’re receiving more data, and processing it faster, than a program.

Humans are fundamentally pattern matchers, and we’re great at it. What you call concept I call pattern.

[proton_9]

Have you read Ray Kurzweil's how to create a mind? His definition of our mind is something similar along the lines. Pattern matching/ predictions are all that we do, according to him. I didn't think we'd come so far when I read it a few years ago. Agi seems like a real possibility now and I think I should consider developing some skills besides being able to write php.

[nocman]

> If sensor data were the problem, computers could easily outperform humans since we have sensors that generate much more detailed data than the human senses

I believe you vastly underestimate the amount of information the human brain processes continuously. Computers outperform humans by performing extremely narrow, focused computations at a high rate of speed. Despite years and years of research, I don't believe humans have even scratched the surface of understanding the human brain. In fact, I don't believe humans are capable of fully understanding it, since it was created by Someone so much greater than them.