We already have machines that are generally intelligent and require as much energy as a few light bulbs. Why wouldn’t it be eventually possible to replicate them in silicon?
>We already have machines that are generally intelligent and require as much energy as a few coalgas lights. Why wouldn’t it be eventually possible to replicate them in brass and steam?
My understanding of the argument of this article is that the conceptual design that replicates intelligence is what the industry has failed to generate today. Simply stating that it might be possible to create is failing to engage; the massive increase in compute power from Babbage to McCarthy didn't give us AGI, because they didn't figure out the right design to reason about anything in even a hundred times a human's energy consumption. If from McCarthy to today we still haven't actually found the proper recipe it just might be worth considering the point the article's making in spite of our other advancements since then.
Probably shouldn’t have mentioned the silicon though.
And with the current models, the only thing I see is : "let's add more neurons, give it more data to train, and let's hope a mind will come out of these neurons". It helps understand the human brain, and help humanity and all, but I'm sure we are missing some 'theorical ingredients' to get a recipe for a full working AGI.
I mean if you simulate all the chemical processes in some being then yeah probably you get close (assuming you get everything right), let’s assume there is no unknown in how the atoms in our bodies interact.
Sounds like an expensive project.
If you are _not_ talking about a perfect emulation/simulation of such a machine, I will pose your question back to you: why _would_ it be possible to do something we don’t know what it is? Seems rather contrived to say “we can do this thing we don’t know what it is”.