The author spent a lot of words saying a lot of nothing which seems to be the general case of communicating about anything that is poorly defined like conscious

The author spent a lot of words saying a lot of nothing which seems to be the general case of communicating about anything that is poorly defined like consciousness or intelligence. > If a computer program is bound to finish quickly by virtue of its architecture, it cannot possibly be capable of general problem-solving. Our current tools are bound to produce a finite and usable amount of information because that is what is useful to us. One can easily have them produce infinite streams in a loop musing and diverging on tangents as you please but it wouldn't be useful nor would make the general category more or less intelligent. You could say that a finite exploration of any information space has finite explanatory power bounded by how much input/output it can do but that would be as boring as saying you can only fit so many apples based on the size of the barrel used. The uncomfortable truth is it might matter a lot less how intelligent a tool is than how complex a transformation it can handle. It's possible that we could make something that for practical purposes appears much smarter than us that still isn't by a human definition intelligent, conscious, or directed. Focusing on factors that are functionally less relevant may just reveal our bias towards viewing the universe in terms of self when in fact it has no objective thing that corresponds to the labels we've stuck on ourselves.