[hollerith]

>The moment that any element has more than one underlying meaning the problem class exceeds what is capable by a computer (also known as a deterministic finite automata).

This is complete bullshit, and computability theory has nothing to say about which (if any) cognitive tasks people can do that AI cannot.

[trod123]

> This is complete bullshit

That may be your belief, but it is not, and beliefs mean little in the face of reality.

Saying the same thing in a more formalized way (so there can be no ambiguity), it is inherent in the 1:1 unique input to output relationship that is required for each state transition on a state graph, for the system's property of determinism to be preserved.

No disrespect intended, but you don't seem to have actually taken or learned important parts regarding this subject matter.

> computability theory has nothing to say about which (if any) cognitive tasks people can do that AI cannot.

You are incorrect. The very first video in that linked coursework (from MIT) provides a counterexample to this statement. The professor clearly states this is impossible, and the proofs that come later in the class prove it.

This statement is an over-generalization based in fallacy.

[hollerith]

>you don't seem to have actually taken or learned important parts regarding this subject matter.

If I hadn't mastered the concepts of computability and deterministic finite automata, I wouldn't've written what I did.

[trod123]

I'd have responded sooner but YN stopped accepting submissions, sorry if they made you wait.

We will have to disagree.

I feel my position still stands correct on solid rational foundation, since you haven't provided any rational basis other than an appeal to authority, and there remain several unanswered contradictions in the supposition you made.