That doesn’t contradict what they said. We may one day design a biological computing system that is capable of it. We don’t entirely understand how neurons work; it’s reasonable to posit that the differences that many AGI boosters assert don’t matter do matter— just not in ways we’ve discovered yet.

▲

kelnos 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I mentioned this in another thread, but I do wonder if we engineer a sort of biological computer, will it really be a computer at all, and not a new kind of life itself?

	▲	jakeydus 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> not a new kind of life itself? In my opinion, this is more a philosophical question than an engineering one. Is something alive because it’s conscious? Is it alive because it’s intelligent? Is a virus alive, or a bacteria, or an LLM? Beats me.
	▲	DrewADesign 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Maybe — though we’d still have engineered it, which is the point I was trying to make.

▲

slashdave 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

We understand how neurons work to quite a bit of detail.

	▲	DrewADesign 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The Allen Institute doesn’t seem to think so. We don’t even know how the brain of a roundworm ticks and it’s only got 302 neurons— all of which are mapped, along with their connections.