You say I'm required to "put out there where [I] think that human creativity materially diverges from the output of an ANN" but you state your opinion with as l

You say I'm required to "put out there where [I] think that human creativity materially diverges from the output of an ANN" but you state your opinion with as little support as I did. Both are just opinions. My views on the matter have nothing to do with being "anti-AI" or "signalling" to anyone, and the latter suggestion is mildly offensive. Like many here, while being no sort of expert I've thought quite a lot about these questions and have fairly detailed views about them. I suspect strong AI is possible and will not require new fundamental physics or anything like that. However, I suspect that if it is achieved it will be of a very different nature to GPT-3 etc and to ML in general. I don't think the behaviour demonstrated by these systems so far resembles human creativity, understanding or reasoning at all, although they are capable of impressive and fascinating things. I'd go so far as to say the differences seem, to me at least, rather obvious, if difficult to define. However, I'm open to alternative views and to the possibility I may be wrong. I greatly enjoy discussing these sorts of things, but adversarial exchanges on hn filled with ad-hominems aren't the way I like to do it.