How are you defining technology? How are you defining human problems? Inventions are created to solve human problems, not theoretical problems of fictional universe. Do X-rays, refrigerators, phones and even looms solve problems for nonhumans?
Claiming something that sounds deep doesn’t make it an axiom.
I understand the ultimate end goal to be simulation of life. A near perfect replica of the real world we can use to simulate and test medicine, economy, and social impact.
I actually do not really mean what I wrote. I disliked what the commenter had to say about other people's social skills in a different thread and wanted to get one in. Not my most mature moment.
Perhaps it may help to work on your social skills with more intent. People who often find themselves disrespected at work aren't always bad performers but they do tend to have large social blind spots they themselves aren't aware of.
We find that people having to perform mental arithmetics as opposed to people using calculators exhibited more neural activities. They were also able to recall the specific numbers in the equations more.
The debate around whether or not transformer-architecture-based AIs can "think" or not is so exhausting and I'm over it.
What's much more interesting is the question of "If what LLMs do today isn't actual thinking, what is something that only an actually thinking entity can do that LLMs can't?". Otherwise we go in endless circles about language and meaning of words instead of discussing practical, demonstrable capabilities.
They had built a solid streaming platform for low latency cloud gaming but failed hard on actually having interesting games to play on it. You just can't launch a gaming platform with a handful of games that have been available everywhere and expect it to succeed.
How are you defining technology? How are you defining human problems? Inventions are created to solve human problems, not theoretical problems of fictional universe. Do X-rays, refrigerators, phones and even looms solve problems for nonhumans?
Claiming something that sounds deep doesn’t make it an axiom.