You do realize the "AI" we're talking about here is just LLMs, right? Language is a huge part of being human, so that's a good elements but: 1. There's no evi

You do realize the "AI" we're talking about here is just LLMs, right? Language is a huge part of being human, so that's a good elements but: 1. There's no evidence that these LLMs have any sort of actual understanding of what they produce. 2. Being human is a lot more than just linguistic capability. We are embodied in a certain way, can interact with environments, have rich, multi-sensory experiences etc. tbh I think anyone that believes AGI can arise from an LLM is extremely naive and has basically no idea of the history of this track of research or how it works. To assert that LLMs will be capable of achieving consciousness is equivalent to asserting that human consciousness is reducible to statistical inference, which is palpably not true. (see. e.g. deductive logic). The only reason people even fall into the trap of thinking computers are remotely close to getting to AGI is because it became very popular to reason about the brain using analogies from computer science in the 50s, despite the fact that this was completely unjustified, and people glob on to the metaphors and then have the mypoia to actually think the human brain (which is exceedingly complex) is reducible to a freakin' von neuman architecture, lol. Biological systems and inorganic systems are fundamentally different.