[tluyben2]

> won't ever be able to replace

Humanity is recent in the cosmos, modern computing and AI are not 100 years old. You think your statement will hold in 1000 or 10000 years? You obviously believe the human brain is something supernatural which I do not (in fact, the past 10 years of AI boosts kind of convinced me our brain mechanism is vastly simpler than we thought; it’s just a complex, overarchitected implementation), but even believing that, we are just beginning to scratch the surface. I think it can do a convincing simile within years, at max decades from now. Something you cannot tell apart on the screen or audio. You might not even be told it is an AI.

[8bitsrule]

>You obviously believe the human brain is something supernatural... convinced me our brain mechanism is vastly simpler than we thought; it’s just a complex, overarchitected implementation)

Cults can often convince all kinds of people of all kinds of things. Long ago LaPlace asserted a clockwork universe; that didn't hold water for too long. Too simplistic.

Just kidding, but really, anecdotes don't constitute evidence that the mind is a 'brain mechanism'. Yep, many of our voluntary and involuntary routine behaviors are quite robot-like .. breathing, eating, sleeping, sexing. That said, some of us are less content with the routine.

The expert systems now being referred to as 'artificial intelligence' are limp P.T. Barnum simulations of true intelligence, and of course there is little substantial evidence to support -any- model of creativity or consciousness ... let alone a mechanical one. In the face of that lack of evidence, a supernatural theory is no worse than a mechanical one.

I prefer and will continue to prefer real intelligence and creativity of the human kind because it is substantially superior to limp simulations ... and because I am a human. I'll resist lowering my standards. Those who've tried to teach machines the mechanics of music have learned from continued failure that great music is beyond any of our so-called 'music theory'. I'll confidently assert that the same is true of dramatic performances.

[consumer451]

> You obviously believe the human brain is something supernatural which I do not

This deserves zooming in on. There seem to be only two options.

1. There are supernatural forces, and we have magical things like a human soul

2. There are no supernatural forces, and our brains are a series of chemical and electrical states, and nothing else

If it is option 2, then you must accept that it is plausible that a machine could be made which could also have those those states, and navigate them like our biological machine. Which path of development leads to this is unknown, but it is illogical to me to say things like "won't ever be able to replace" humans.

I am only repeating and expanding on what you said because this is a realization which I only came to relatively recently and thought it is worth sharing.

[ihatepython]

> You obviously believe the human brain is something supernatural which I do not (in fact, the past 10 years of AI boosts kind of convinced me our brain mechanism is vastly simpler than we thought

It's entirely possible that this statement applies to your brain specifically, but not necessarily to all brains

[tluyben2]

Could very well be. But yeah, we would at least have AGI implementing my brain artificially, so that’s enough.

[freetanga]

My money is on human life vanishing from existence in 500 years, a wet silent fart of universe that nobody ever caught a whiff of….

[tluyben2]

I bet on that too (and indeed should added ‘if we are still here’), however if that happens or not, we’ll see emotion rich AI actors way before that.