Another thing that jumps out to me is just how fluidly people redefine "intelligence" to mean "just beyond what machines today can do". I can't help wonder much your definition has changed. What would happen if we reviewed your previous opinions, commentary, thoughts, etc... would your time-varying definitions of "intelligence" be durable and consistent? Would this sequence show movement towards a clearer and more testable definition over time?

My guess? The tail is wagging the dog here -- you are redefining the term in service of other goals. Many people naturally want humanity to remain at the top of the intellectual ladder and will distort reality as needed to stay there.

My point is not to drag anyone through the mud for doing the above. We all do it to various degrees.

Now, for my sermon. More people need to wake up and realize machine intelligence has no physics-based constraints to surpassing us.

A. Businesses will boom and bust. Hype will come and go. Humanity has an intrinsic drive to advance thinking tools. So AI is backed by huge incentives to continue to grow, no matter how many missteps economic or otherwise.

B. The mammalian brain is an existence proof that intelligence can be grown / evolved. Homo sapiens could have bigger brains if not for birth-canal size constraints and energy limitations.

C. There are good reasons to suggest that designing an intelligent machine will be more promising than evolving one.

D. There are good reasons to suggest silicon-based intelligence will go much further than carbon-based brains.

E. We need to stop deluding ourselves by moving the goalposts. We need to acknowledge reality, for this is reality we are living in, and this is reality we can manipulate.

Let me know if you disagree with any of the sentences below. I'm not here to preach to the void.