4 ms·

I agree that the arguments for it being impossible are, rather unconvincing. However, I do think there is an important difference between "in principle" and "i

• darawk 4y ago
  Ya, I think that's potentially a reasonable position to take. However, if you wanted to be confident in that view I think you'd need to posit some particular reason it ought to be difficult. I at least can't come up with any convincing specific reasons. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course, but given the amount of progress we've made on tasks we previously believed to be equivalent to general intelligence, it's difficult for me to see any clear reason why it shouldn't be possible sometime in the next century or two. We have a rough idea of the quantity of computation the brain is doing, so either the brain is using computational methods beyond Turing completeness, or the only piece we're missing is the algorithm (since we're within reach of the raw FLOPs). If it's "just" an algorithm that we have to search for, it seems extremely difficult to predict when that may or may not come.