Yeah I agree, and I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. The burden of proof is on people who claim that minds are like Turing machines, or that minds can b

Yeah I agree, and I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. The burden of proof is on people who claim that minds are like Turing machines, or that minds can be simulated by Turing machines. Too often I see that assumption simply being taken for granted. Gary Marcus has brought up Moravec's paradox and I think that is pretty strong evidence against it. Maybe not in a precise mathematical sense, but there is no argument on the other side that's precise either. Again, the burden of proof is on the other side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox In other words, it may be that to achieve general human-like AI, we would need to invent a fundamentally different kind of machine. I don't see that idea being taken very seriously. It could still be that lots of specialized AIs have a huge impact on the world. Although I do think that deep learning has bad engineering properties for things like self-driving cars, as Marcus points out. It could still have a lot of impact for less critical tasks.