> So far there is no evidence that this is actually doable over anything but billions of years (and even then we have no idea how nature really managed it).

"The brain is so mysterious and unique, that we should abandon all attempts to even try to apply results like the general approximation theorem to it and discard all signs that some approximation is happening."

Why we don't see signs of intelligence in the universe? The simplest self-replicator requires accidental synthesis of the sequence of 200 (or so) RNA nucleobases.

BTW, your argument could have been applied word-for-word to powered flight in 1899. In short, argumentum ad ignorantiam.

oh absolutely, no argument there, the case for AGI is pretty weak. I was just saying that I am even more sceptical that any of this is a "first or nothing" scenario - that is one of my biggest pet peeves about the entire tech sector.

ASI is the acronym you’re looking for. It stands for Artificial Superintelligence.

Arguably it’s already here. ChatGPT knows more than any human who has ever lived. It can carry out millions of conversations at once. And it has better working memory (“context”) than humans. And it can speak and write code much faster than humans.

Humans still have some advantages: Specialists are smarter than chatgpt in most domains. We’re better at using imagination. We understand the physical world better. But it seems like we’re watching the gap close in real time. A few years ago chatgpt could barely program. Now you can give it complex prompts and it can write large, complex programs which mostly work. If you extrapolate forward, is there any good reason to think humans will retain a lead?