Uh, did you miss that LaMDA passed the Turing test in June? The conclusion was that the result isn't valid because there's no intelligence behind LaMDA.

Or, "It's not really intelligent".

This is what we're going to get. We'll use harder and harder tests and see them being passed, and we'll just keep concluding "It's not really actually intelligent". Or, maybe we'll switch to "It's not self-aware" or "It's not sapient" at some point.

Yes. Intelligence is not defined by that. So what is it defined by?

>But these neurons don’t have much in common with biological neurons. They utilize the electrical grid impulse-neuron principle but do not consider electric inhibiter-neurons. The entire chemical-neuron Transmitter system is ignored as well.

Correct. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison in that sense. Like I said.

However, it's hundreds of billions vs. 750 million, if we really wanted to compete.

​

> A biological brain can alter neuro transmitter levels to react to the same input in indefinite amount of ways, without changing the underlying electrical nor the chemical synapse network configuration.

All that and a few studies have hinted that there might also be an electromagnetic aspect to brain function. Still, an AI doesn't have to work the exact same way as a biological intelligence. It does make direct comparisons harder, though.

​

>AI can solve non-linear problems. That’s a big step in terms of computation but far off from what we believe makes up intelligence.

Yes, yes. The same old story. A goalpost is set for AI, then it's reached, then people say "what about THIS", and "Doing that previous thing doesn't prove it's actually intelligent".

>I doubt that claim

Doubt me at your own peril.

Of course, that's not the full story. Machine neurons aren't necessarily as performant as animal neurons, for an example. On the other hand, they're ridiculously faster. Also, that reference is nearly a decade old. We're somewhere around 90 billion simulated neurons at this point. Don't quote me on that, though, that's just the ballpark I got from a fairly casual googling.

Most of what you'd call "machine learning" AI:s can't really reason - They do pattern recognition really well, and data transformation, but that's about it. However, that doesn't mean you cannot do AIs who can do logical reasoning. There's been some fairly recent developments on that area. Now, where the limits are, we don't really know, but we're way beyond amoebas and simple invertebrates such as nematodes, definitely.

Well, yes, except no. An AI isn't going to match a cat at stalking prey, for an example. However, a cat is trash at chess, and loses on facial recognition pretty hard.
Pray tell, how does intelligence work?

>current AI is still not even as „intelligent“ as an Amoeba.

Very incorrect. While direct comparison is impossible, as they specialize in different tasks, modern AI can have over a billion neurons, which puts them above cats and some relatively-smart birds, such as magpies, in a simple comparison.

He's failed plenty, but I don't think SpaceX or Tesla are considered failures.
Wait, what's this got to do with futurology?

If we can go to the moon now, why didn't we see any signs of earlier civilizations going to the moon?

Is that really what you were asking, or is this about alien civilizations?

From all the job offers, I doubt it.

Do people use it for something besides looking for or advertising jobs? Because that seems like a mistake.

I prefer the idea that humanity's purpose is to help the planet produce plastics.

Then it's not going to emerge.
Before you can worry about the future, you must survive until tomorrow.
Trick is in being selfish AND capable of perceiving longer timespans.

Hmm.
Go?
DnD?
Chrono Trigger?
Tekken?
Castlevania?
Zak Mckraken and the Alien Mind Benders?

Absolutely no idea.

Coincidence? I think not!