Creating a human-level intelligence artificially is easy: just copy what happens in nature. We already have this technology, and we call it IVF.
The idea that humans aren't the only way of producing human-level intelligence is taken as a given in many academic circles, but we don't really have any reason to believe that. It's an article of faith (as is its converse – but the converse is at least in-principle falsifiable).
Even if the best we ever do is something with the intelligence and energy use of the human brain that would still be a massive (5 ooms?) improvement on the status quo.
You need to pay people, and they use a bunch of energy commuting, living in air conditioned homes, etc. which has nothing to do with powering the brain.
“Creating a human-level intelligence artificially is easy: just copy what happens in nature. We already have this technology, and we call it IVF.”
What’s the point of this statement? You know that IVF has nothing to do with artificial intelligence (as in intelligent machines). Did you just want to sound smart?
Maybe some biological/chemical processes are efficient in some unexpected ways on certain things, for example, that would make mechanical/silicone based "machines" non competitive with such biological machines.
Which was the point of the post that you were responding to, if you actually read it.
> > > the goal of all of this is to create human level intelligence or better.
> > The goal is to create human intelligence in machines
> Maybe some biological/chemical processes are efficient in some unexpected ways ...
I think the comment about "human intelligence in machines" may have been meant to point out that there is already a perfectly expected biological process to create human intelligence not in machines: When a mommy and a daddy like each other very much, they hug and kiss in a special way, and then nine months later...
