Well you made a liar of me again because I'm going to take a swing at yet another soft ball you've lobbed. If you don't think there's anything fundamentally dif

Well you made a liar of me again because I'm going to take a swing at yet another soft ball you've lobbed. If you don't think there's anything fundamentally different about human brains and current computing technology, you should actually try reading neurologists' research about the structure of the human brain. Or any neurons at all. To quote Christof Koch-- chief scientific officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle-- from a Wired article “The roundworm has exactly 302 neurons, and we still have no frigging idea how this animal works.” (Maybe he hasn't thought to ask an AI enthusiast!) We're not even close to knowing what every part of the brain does, or even have a complete model of how individual biological neurons work, let alone know how we would replicate them, let alone have the potential for doing so in my career. https://nautil.us/the-big-problem-with-big-science-ventureslike-the-human-brain-project-235387/ https://nautil.us/the-big-problem-with-big-science-venturesl... Might this happen in a really, really long time? Maybe? We're sure as hell not going to do it with a cluster of GPUs. The actual functions of the neurochemical parts that drive emotion are one of the parts we know least about. So I guess I'm in this for the long haul. What other aspect of this topic can you make bold declarations about without actually having checked if they're correct? -------- EDIT: I once again can't reply because HN probably has better sense than I do. The context of this conversation is the VFX industry. Your assertion was that people who work in the VFX industry shouldn't be surprised if AI takes their jobs. You've moved the goalpost continents from that argument, instead arguing that you're still theoretically correct because in some distant future, science will prevail in mimicking or creating biological machines that can perceive emotion. Please re-read what I said. In the very first comment I made where I said "Maybe a subsequent generation that is vastly more precise, but this isn't even ballpark." And then after that I said that when we get to the stage where machines can do this, it'll philosophically be actual intelligence and not artificial intelligence. Pretending that's in the scope of this conversation is just daft. And then in this very comment where I mused that it might happen in a really long time. We both know that's not relevant to the current VFX industry and you're just not capable of admitting you're wrong. Any other topics you'd like to pretend the discussion is about so you can pretend you're still correct?