>I've seen humans deal with novel situations. The only assumption needed is that humans and AI are subject to the same laws of nature (that is, that there is no

>I've seen humans deal with novel situations. The only assumption needed is that humans and AI are subject to the same laws of nature (that is, that there is no supernatural / outside element to human intelligence) right, but all our computers right now are based on lumping transistors together so you can do math. It's likely that our brains work on a different (but still physical) principle. It's possible our brains can't reasonably be reduced to arithmatic. It's possible (I think likely) that we need different primitives to reasonably simulate a brain. I mean, brains make absolutely terrible Turing machines. And Turing machines make terrible brains. I suspect they just are very different sorts of things, and running something meant for one on the other produces poor results. Sure, it's possible we can discover some new compute primitive that is more powerful (or powerful in a different way) that can do the things the brain can do. It's possible it could do those things better than the brain can. My point is just that for a long time it looked like our current transistor based computers were getting more and more powerful, and that eventually, even if the emulation was terribly inefficient, we'd eventually have enough power to make it work. As we approach the limits of our abilities to make tiny transistors, this is looking less likely.