[nozzlegear]

I think it's a giant leap of faith to go from "there's no evidence that the human brain contains magic" to "ANNs will achieve AGI and we just need to monkey with the parameters to get there." You've ruled out the supernatural, but don't account for mundane limitations like energy, training data, memory or the architecture. That theorem you referenced tells us a sufficiently wide network can (quoting from Wikipedia) "approximate any continuous function to any desired degree of accuracy" – but it doesn't give us any bound on the sample complexity or the energy required. That is to say, just because the theorem says it's technically possible doesn't mean it's literally possible.

[red75prime]

From my POV it's "we haven't found physical processes that allow to do information processing, which is relevant to learning, exponentially faster than digital computers and we aren't likely to find them in the brain."

Or, at least, I don't tend to postulate existence of such mechanisms in the brain after hearing about every empirical ANN deficiency.

BTW, I'm not talking about supernatural. The "magic" could be unknown physical processes, unknown quantum algorithms, unknown physics.