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...