zlacker

Fun theory. We are very far from AGI, however.

>>outwor+(OP)
We still don't even know if AGI is at all possible.

>>outwor+(OP)
Superintelligent AGI. I genuinely think that limited weak AGI is an engineering problem at this stage. Mind you, I will qualify that by saying very weak AGI.

>>JohnFe+N4
If you're a materialist, it surely is.

I think it's extremely unlikely within our lifetimes. I don't think it will look anything remotely like current approaches to ML.

But in a thousand years, will humanity understand the brain well enough to construct a perfect artificial model of it? Yeah absolutely, I think humans are smart enough to eventually figure that out.

>>TillE+cl
> If you're a materialist, it surely is.

As a materialist myself, I also have to be honest and admit that materialism is not proven. I can't say with 100% certainty that it holds in the form I understand it.

In any case, I do agree that it's likely possible in an absolute sense, but that it's unlikely to be possible within our lifetimes, or even in the next couple of lifetimes. I just haven't seen anything, even with the latest LLMs, that makes me think we're on the edge of such a thing.

But I don't really know. This may be one of those things that could happen tomorrow or could take a thousand years, but in either case looks like it's not imminent until it happens.