> “This idea of surpassing human ability is silly because it’s made of human abilities.” He says comparing ourselves with AI is the equivalent of comparing ours

> “This idea of surpassing human ability is silly because it’s made of human abilities.” He says comparing ourselves with AI is the equivalent of comparing ourselves with a car. “It’s like saying a car can go faster than a human runner. Of course it can, and yet we don’t say that the car has become a better runner.” The analogy to running is flawed because rolling and running are different types of locomotion. It's not at all clear that computing and thinking are meaningfully different forms of information processing. In fact, we know that we can compute by thinking since I can reduce lambda calculus terms in my head. We also know computers can compute all computable functions, and we know that all physical systems like the brain necessarily contain finite information (per the Bekenstein Bound), therefore they can in principle by simulated by a computable function. There are therefore strong reasons to suspect an underlying equivalency that would suggest that "artificial intelligence" is a sensible term.