if they can simulate how exacly the brain works, well, this will prove that we are all a computer simulation and we probably dont exist too

My life has proven that cannot take one single sentence froma human mind and another interpret it.

Minority report tech does not exist.

I can tell you: In 1000 years no computer will ask you:
"Good morning Dave, how are you" - Bye real feelings, empathy. You can simulate some stuff, you can write scripts, but you will never see a feeling machine. I also don't think its possible for a "calculator" to get the "I AM" feeling, called consciousness. Forget it.

They modeled a cats entire brain...

So.. this "supercomputer' can go Meow. cough up hair balls and chase mice. Seems like this is a major set back for IBM to me :-)

While we are on the subject of understanding, you are mistaken if you think we understand the inner workings of the brain, or how consciousness exists and functions. We cannot describe consciousness on a step-by-step level with enough detail to model it in a computer program. Even if we could, there is no guarantee that there is not some fundamental element key to consciousness and intelligence that is limited by the use of a digital computer. If you truly believe we as a species can understand the brain and consciousness - you are deluded. I would like to hear your explanation. No high level abstractions allowed - you need to describe it in accurate steps, and you need to have proof. Anyone can conceptualize and abstract intelligence - I've done it many times before in my programs.

what relevance does the state or assassin robots have to the discussion? You will hear no argument from me that we can build a machine which can monitor the economy, predict trends, or perform assassinations: but first of all - this is not intelligence - second of all, there is no such thing as an untraceable assassin.

I am the one being adult about the technology. if/when we achieve true intelligence in a computer, it will be a VERY long time from now, and it would more than likely be in a biological computer, or perhaps as the man in the video said, a quantum computer. Still, I'd bet on the biological computer before the quantum one.

as for the video: that's impressive technology he has in the video, good work for him and his team. Still, it isn't true intelligence. there is no particular difference between a "narrow" AI and an AGI, the separation is an arbitrary one we form from our perceptions. In essence, we design the simulation to emulate intelligence, then we feel accomplished and claim that intelligence has been achieved when in reality we have merely developed a system specifically designed to achieve that outcome. If someone wishes to see intelligence in a machine, they will see it.

an example: We develop a machine to artificially represent emotions and intelligence. We, as emotional beings, become easily attached to said machine, especially if we are the one designing it. Then it comes time to pull the plug. It begs for mercy, it begs for life. Now, we are faced with a moral dilemma. Except it's only a moral dilemma for those who lost sight of what the system is: the machine is not alive, it is specifically DESIGNED to beg for its life, to wish to stay alive, and yet we are surprised when it does so. All it has done is used the logical association between the plug being pulled and its own death, which is counter-productive to its own DESIGNED goals.

In the end, it has no concept of death just like it has no concept of life. You ask it for the definition of an abstract concept and it will give you what you put into it.

I agree that intelligence cannot be described or analyzed properly by us, and that's why we can't truly create intelligence, we can only emulate it or attempt to approximate it and imitate. As for combining all the narrow AI together: there is no metaphysical difference between a "narrow" AI and one that is assembled from many "narrow" AI. it's still a narrow AI but now it can solve more problems. That's what AI is for: solving problems. AI isn't for creating life or true intelligence, and nobody who isn't some crazed idealist or working on the bleeding edge of quantum computing or something is going to imply that we can create true intelligence, only make it appear intelligent according to whatever standard we arbitrarily decide.

Once again, wolfram alpha is not more intelligent than any engineer in the world merely because it has tons of data and can quickly calculate your queries (say that 10 times fast), it's just a tool and nothing more. It has no true intelligence, it parses the command, sorts it, and searches its database for a relevant solution, and applies the input, spits out an output. it's not metaphysically different than many other programs. Ask wolfram alpha to code you a program and it will be at a loss, or even if it could it would pick the "standard" way of doing it. No creativity or intelligence required.

it's not particularly impressive that programs exist which can form a program from UML. That does not require true intelligence

True, Computer Science evolves faster than virtually any other field, but like many other Computer Scientists, I do not stop my learning as soon as I get out of college. I took my AI course very recently in fact and have done some research, and I am still not convinced.

We are not at the limit of our progress, otherwise progress would stop. You could argue that our potential for growth is perhaps limited by the virtue of being a biological organism, but then what is the proposed alternative? Transhumanism? There are all kinds of ethical and social issues which need to be addressed for that to be a working concept of how things should be, not to mention technical issues aren't ironed out yet.

ClearView is interesting, and I congratulate MIT on their research, but it still lacks the concept of self or a knowledge of intent required for my reflection proposal to work as intended. As of now, it just analyzes the trends and statistics in the code, which is simple reflection and the basic application is a common use of AI. MIT and others must agree that weak AI is the future :-)

people say they will have a working build in 2 years often because they need grant money or investors, but in reality two years will roll by and it will be shelved, the company will have folded, or the report will come out and we'll see it's just an advanced tool designed for specific apps.

I have no doubt I'll see AI, in fact I already have. I've worked on it. But I will not see true intelligence in a machine unless it's potentially either a quantum computer or a biological machine.

The woman's chat program is extremely simple. Useful and clever, but not revolutionary and requires no true intelligence. It parses bits and analyzes trends. no big deal. The phone app Is a SPECIFICALLY design app, probably using a knowledge web (forget the tech term) to determine relationships. Useful, but not revolutionary.

How do you propose upgrading our economic system? What role does it play in the discussion of AI?

a computer can "learn" more quickly than a child, but what purpose does it have? It does not learn any more than your hard drive learns when you copy data to it. the computer merely utilizes the data it is given, it has no concept of what that data is beyond the bits.