So the trouble with this argument is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the brain can solve problems that a turing machine can't.
There's none. No one has been able to formulate a problem in a reasonable way that a computer algorithm can't be devised to solve it that people can solve.
It is basically a bunch of handwaving nonsense like the tripartite nature of god(father, son and holy spirit...)
Searle's chinese room argument is slightly better, but is still ultimately a pile of horseshit. From an external point of view we cannot distinguish between a room full of people who do not speak chinese but can translate it following rigorous instructions and tables and a room full of qualified chinese translators. For all external purposes the black boxes are equivalent except that you can take a chinese translator out of the room and still use them to translate chinese without the rigorous instructions and reference material in the room.
There is no good philosophical argument against Strong AI. It is a bunch of quasi-religious, humans are special because we say so wishy-washy nonsense.
I would be more careful using Steve Jobs as an example, the patents he infringed on (Ericsson, Nokia and another company, i do not recall the name off the top of my head) was what made the modern simpler smartphone possible (over 30 patents if i recall right) - so a strong lead/visionary - yes, a strong original programmer as the picture of him is drawn (from my limited knowledge - not so much).
Linus - who can disagree? Even though with years the will to break new ground decreases. Elon though humanity is indepted to him and he has shown that some people discarded by big data has alot to give he still isn't leading alone as the original programmer. Neither is Zuckerberg as far as i know (but I can admit I don't know enough about him or his history).
Visionaries - yes. Original lead programmers that lead by example and create original solutions to individual programming problems - not so much to my knowledge.
This is the thing. Amazon is basically a fast food restaurant or a best buy and not a technology company like say Google. The only real difference between Amazon and say IBM, is that Amazon is younger and used to have pretty smart leadership. It is a conformist place that is really only successful because Wall Street doesn't want to fund more than one ecommerce company.
The notion of "non-technical" for the "non-technical" cofounder of a technology company is dramatically more technical than the notion of "non-technical" for the general population. A useful non-technical co-founder is at least a technology power user, and probably actually someone who could write code that will kind of work most of the time in a language designed for encouraging children to program such as python. https://www.python.org/doc/essays/everybody/
E-ChatGPT should replace snail-Google. It's called a reaping of just rewards, happens all the time. Google was once blessed by the new god and now must suffer at the hand of the old devil.
wait a minute you mean that super mega corp doesn't have any more competence than super mega bank? this is unfucking believable, pay my interest now!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el6g_REXHoo
just use the wheelbarrow to move the language books to the study and then pull on the statue's arm to open the secret passageway to belgium. everbody is nice in belgium, even the antipastists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2JYQZvnpAw&list=PL5mR0PxdND...
look basically wall street looks at all companies that it funds and manages along with it's partner the SEC as rent extraction companies.
the entire consumer visible us economy is massively manipulated to basically just extract rent from the rest of the country to pay for manhattan and london's bad habits.
oh yeah, just what I fucking wanted, the learning curve of vim and emacs with the power of the fucking jvm, written with anonymous first class functions. are you smoking crack and meth or just one of them?
You should look up how it went once the EU project got known to larger hidden players of the world. The only thing missing from that project was HVDC "breakers" (idk the enlgish word), which got engineered in time, though the project fell apart.
Solarcells currently are around 20 in efficiency (give or take) there is technology for 40-50% efficiency ready to go and be mass produced (being held back, you can argue oil and aristocracy or that consistant fast technological evolution kills those investing early in it as causes) and the theoretical roof around 70% was broken (99.9 something is possible).
Either way the only other way of producing or harnessing energy is torium - due to partial beneficiary effect on halftimes on currently radioactive materials produced. Afaik China is the only ones who have a torium plant up and running (for the western world to survive the energy boom advance solarpower quickly through regulation nationally and make the huge investments on other continents/nations to upkeep status quo).
ANy actual numbers on that? New terracotta versus terracotta solar panels as one example (measuring in longevity and estimated cost/income on the balancing sheet etc..?
"I like to purge my real life too. De-cluttering is fun. My zen would be to have nothing left."
There is a huge difference in not valueing material property as high and not having anything left. I would figure out that difference before reaching the goal.