Ni siquiera voy a fingir qur la muerte del Indio Solari me conmueve. Antes de ser papa, viajaba en subte y le miraba los pechos a mi mamá incomodandola cada vez que se cruzaban en un vagón. No era un santo, next.
Yann LeCun's JEPA is also another thing that fits really well here. I don't remember exactly how it goes, but if I'm not mistaken is basically another way of "intelligent seeing", where you have camera + an AI specifically made for really **understanding** what it sees (I'm sure you've heard about it or seen videos about it).
That is also another form of seeing and intelligence, that does not map 1:1 to the definition of either, but goes in the same bag of "the thing sees" and "the thing understands what it sees", a more complete form of seeing if you will
But you're mixing practical function with literal definitions.
For practical purposes, a camera sees. It may not be a literal definition of seeing that maps 1:1 to how a creature sees, but it's good enough of a definition for us humans to make use of it.
It's the same with AGI (when it eventually happens): it might not be a literal 1:1 map to human intelligence, but it will be useful/good enough for us humans to trully say we created a form of intelligence, that for practical uses that thing we created is intelligent.
You're trying to think too deep on a concept that is more practical than anything else. Yes, we can think deep about it, that's good, but for practical purposes a camera sees and a machine **can be intelligent**, because their functions are close enough to their creature-originated definitions.
I think you're misunderstanding intelligence.
Yes, it's almost impossible for us to create true AGI *right now* because our understanding of it + our compute power is not enough **yet**
**But**, that doesn't mean we won't be able to do it in the future.
Intelligence isn't an abstract thing, but it also isn't a mysterious obscure thing that we'll never understand fully. We **do** understand enough about intelligence to know it's a physical phenomenon, even if we don't fully understand how it emerges, and we don't have the means to reproduce it as good as our own brains **yet**, but it's just a matter of time, because intelligence comes from the brain, and the brain isn't a magical thing, it's matter. Our intelligence is an emerging system. We **can** reverse engineer it, because, again, it's just a very fucking complex system **but** a system after all, and it follows the laws of physics.
The argument of "it took 4 billion years of chemical search to get there, so it's impossible for us to create it" also doesn't apply, because we have done many MANY things that took nature eons and us a bunch of crackheads with too much free time.
I'm gonna also point this comment (https://t.co/qUim62ZhwI) which is also true. You have humanity in a sort of reset, some sort of high pedestal of beings, when we are just one more animal. There's nothing special about us compared to the universe, we are matter. The clock didn't reset the moment semi-hariless ape discovered fire, it's still going. We are still the same process (evolution) doing its work.
tl;dr: our intelligence being hard to understand right now doesn't mean it can't be replicated in the future. That's not scientific thinking; it's just thinking.