> our current technology (neural networks, genetic algorithms, etc.) is fundamentally different from how the human brain works. I don't see that. Software neu

> our current technology (neural networks, genetic algorithms, etc.) is fundamentally different from how the human brain works. I don't see that. Software neural networks explicitly mimic the neural networks of the human brain. Not saying there aren't functional differences, but the basic structure is there. > It does not have a capacity for abstract thought But 'it' does have capacity for unsupervised cluster recognition, and can use the identified clusters to influence processing results. More is likely required, but this seems to be the basic mechanism required for "abstraction." > that will not come just by investing more in our current technology I think you are saying that some fundamentals are still missing. I don't disagree, but we seem to have some important building blocks in hand. However, it may be the case that all the fundamentals are now in hand, and it is exactly a process of evolutionary change to yield true AI. > general intelligence, it will look very different from what we have now I think this is just the traditional dismissal of "whatever has actually been achieved, that is not AI." At some point this becomes an "AI of the gaps" argument, where the gaps are ever shrinking.