> Weirdly, I think your second bit (solving from first principles) is much closer to the truth of how human brains work than "copy-paste?" Which harmonizes quit

> Weirdly, I think your second bit (solving from first principles) is much closer to the truth of how human brains work than "copy-paste?" Which harmonizes quite well with my first point? I suppose we just disagree about this. My own experiences indicate that mostly I ape other humans rather than “figure” things out. > As great as computers are, I think a big problem is how they've created this tendency for bad analogies when it comes to the details. Not really different from how Frankenstein came about from people watching the advent of mechanical stuff like gears and pistons and such, and then made the LEAP to "HUMAN LIKE MONSTER." But isn’t that happening in the real world? Machines intended to present as human are becoming more human-like overtime. > I'm not saying it will never ever happen -- but I'm still comfortable saying, even today, computers are NOTHING AT ALL LIKE human brains. I don’t think computers need to work like brains in order to do most of or all of the things that humans do. As you pointed out a car doesn’t need to work like a human’s locomotive system to do like human locomotion.