Comment by ben_w

> The "something deeply wrong" part about AI, that even most technology enthusiasts evidently do not seem to grasp, is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct — and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever.

Not that I'm saying AI are like brains, but can you describe why brains, which are fundamentally slightly dodgy electrochemistry with frequent literal delusions of grander, are not "statistical"?

> No matter how much investors and tech companies want you to believe that they are on the verge of super intelligence, nothing I've seen to date can not easily be explained by "correlation engine", including the "novel" math solutions, all of which appear to just be "a composition of solutions humans have developed and documented elsewhere" upon deeper inspection.

Ditto, when do we humans do things exceeding the parameters of "correlation engine", especially if you consider compositing things either we or some other part of nature has developed and documented elsewhere to be insufficient?