[nicomeemes]

You're lazily mixing metaphors here. This is the problem in all such discussions, it often gets reduced to some combination of hand waving and hype training. "AGI" means different things to everyone, okay? Then it's a meaningless term. It's like saying hey with a quantum computer of enormous size, we could simulate molecular interactions at a level impossible with current technology. I would love for us to be able to do that- but where is the evidence it is even possible?

[ben_w]

There's no metaphor here, I meant literally doing those things.

I followed up the point about AGI meaning different things by giving a common and sufficient standard of reference.

Your brain is evidence that it's "even possible".

[namaria]

> Your brain is evidence that it's "even possible".

All your brain proves is that a universe can produce planetary ecosystems capable of supporting human civilizations made of very efficient brain carrying mammals.

It definitely doesn't prove that these mammals can create boxes capable 'solve physics, poverty and global warming' if we just give Sam Altman enough electricity and chips. Or dollars to that effect.

[ben_w]

If that's what you meant, then I agree with you.

What's the quote? "If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn’t".

Even though it doesn't need to be a single human doing all of it, our brains as existence proofs of the physical possibility, not of our own understanding.

[namaria]

Like I said, our brain proves that the way to solve the problem of 'how to get autonomous systems capable of non trivially complex behavior' is 'planetary ecosystems sustained by starlight based on self reproducing cellular nanobots'.

Companies selling ways around that apparatus to achieve intelligent behavior are selling you perpetual motion machines, or slavery. There has been zero 'AI' systems that don't depend on painstakingly collected and analyzed data beforehand.