[yc-kjh]

Don't just vote me down. Give reasons. Critique my arguments. Critique Searle and Nagle, whom I cite. (You have to have read their corpus first.)

Voting my comment down without giving any reason or justification proves my original point that nobody can stomach the actual evidence that I have raised, and which Searle and Nagle have also raised.

You are not yet ready for the Kuhnian revolution in AI which must eventually take place, and you will be on the wrong side of it.

[yaakov34]

I didn't downvote you (I am not much of a downvoter), but frankly, your comment (the first one) is exactly the sort of thing that can be legitimately downvoted as "not contributing to the discussion". You launched into a vehement philosophical critique that can't possibly be hashed out in a comment thread. Do you want people to start posting 20-page book reviews right here and now? And nothing you said is particulary earth-shatteringly new to anyone. It's just that none of us - not me, certainly - is going to solve or prove unsolvable the secret of consciousness in a HN comment.

[anigbrowl]

Eh, it was rude but nonetheless relevant IMO, even though I disagree with the GP.

[VMG]

You're the outsider opinion here and must present strong evidence. There is no good evidence for dualism, everything we've learned about the brain is completely consistent with materialism.

You must build a stronger case than Searle and Nagel which have been previously thoroughly debunked.

And to your overall point: To claim that we're wasting money on AI in a world we'll have self-driving cars in a few years is ridiculous. I'm surprised your main comment still seems to have a positive number of votes.