I agree it would be the same. It can't

The problem about your approach is that true reasoning is adaptable but brute force reasoning is still fragile. Being adaptable is the strength of our current intelligence you simply can't brute force every combination in existence especially when slight nuances of a situation changes the whole reasoning chain machienes fail because you have cut corners too much. in theory if you could program every possible situation you would need infinite storage and infinite computation going on for an infinite amount of time the system would be too slow or unusable so you have to cut corners and thats where the fragility emerges. To truly brute force it we still would need decades if not centuries along with vast improvements of hardware perfromance ( and proper curated and triple checked, educated data to train from we have none of it right now) to configure it properly so it can mimic it on a human level.

@@szebike I don't follow what you are saying because I have no approach. I'm not trying to solve AGI. I'm not trying to recreate general human-level capabilities. (although I do pursue the value of deployed enterprise ML.)

@@EricSiegelPredicts I meant the main comment writer named "benitodifrancesco7254 " not you. The youtube comment section truly needs a revamp because its not always clear who the comment writer is you refering to properly.

@@szebike Oops, thanks for clarifying!

Great to hear!

AGI *is* fairly well defined: It can do everything a human can.

@@EricSiegelPredicts and you still don't think that will be achieved? Seems like a weird hill to die on, but hey if you're right you're right, we will see.

I didn’t say we never will - I said nothing we’ve done constitutes concrete steps toward it and it is still as speculative as in the 1950s. It’s unfalsifiable… like a ghost story. It’s the novel Mary Shelley would have written if she knew about algorithms. What is the basis for your confident belief?

@@EricSiegelPredicts I don't know. All of the money being poured into it, interviews with people far more intelligent than me (TRULY not a high bar, I'll admit), extrapolating from my interactions with current models over the last year... that's probably about all I got. It seems pretty obvious to me though? Simulate intelligence and throw more and more computational power behind it. I mean I'm not claiming they're gonna spring to life or have intention, but as far as simulating intelligence to the degree that they can be used to replace most labor, seems like we're making huge strides towards.

@@benjaminkemper5876 That's forthright of you to admit your belief is simply because so many others seem to believe and invest in the notion. But it is nothing if not a leap of faith. It's hype. It's also groupthink. More computational power doesn't address the *quantitative* challenge, which we have no fundamental notion on how to address -- see that point within my HBR article and also see my more recent Forbes article (see the video's notes). You are exactly the person for whom I made all these videos and wrote all these articles. A "go with the flow" belief system is a self-replicating ,prevalent misconception.

Thanks! Yeah, articles have to be around 1000 words - I have another 5k words on the matter coming…