[jdiff]

Both can be true. There can be nothing physically or metaphysically "special" about human cognition, and at the same time, we can also be very, very far away from creating even a holistic facsimile. We've got echoes of it in statistical, predictive models, though, and that's shoved the idea into the discourse far before its time.

[brookst]

I agree. My point is that if there’s no mystic soul, it’s probably a mistake to say AI can’t provide the same actual connection that humans do. Today’s AI can’t, for most people, but it’s a statement about maturity of the tech, not human special-ness.

I also maybe agree with “very very far away”, in the 20ish year range. Farther than some people think, closer than others do.

If and when we get to a place where AI reaches that holistic facsimile, I’m not sure what I’ll think of humans who reject the idea and insist that we are qualitatively different because (insert biological or spiritual rationale here). I suspect it will feel like seeing someone mistreat a call center employee because they happen to be in India, or sound like a disliked minority.

[fc417fc802]

> probably a mistake to say AI can’t provide the same actual connection that humans do.

Almost as a matter of definition by the time AI can provide such a connection there won't be anything distinguishing it from an actual human. Which is to say, what you're implying there is an artificially manufactured but fully functional human.