The logic and physics that make a computer what it is --- a binary logic playback device.
By design, this is all it is capable of doing.
Assuming a finite, inanimate computer can produce AGI is to assume that "intelligence" is nothing more than a binary logic algorithm. Currently, there is no logical basis for this assumption --- simply because we have yet to produce a logical definition of "intelligence".
Of all people, programmers should understand that you can't program something that is not defined.
> By design, this is all it is capable of doing. Assuming a finite, inanimate computer can produce AGI is [...]
Humans are also made up of a finite number of tiny particles moving around that would, on their own, not be considered living or intelligent.
> [...] we have yet to produce a logical definition of "intelligence". Of all people, programmers should understand that you can't program something that is not defined.
There are multiple definitions of intelligence, some mathematically formalized, usually centered around reasoning and adapting to new challenges.
There are also a variety of definitions for what makes an application "accessible", most not super precise, but that doesn't prevent me improving the application in ways such that it gradually meets more and more people's definitions of accessible.
Are you a programmer? Are you familiar with Alan Turing [0]?
What do you mean by finite, are you familiar with the halting problem? [1]
What does "inanimate" mean here? Have you seen a robot before?
Imprecise language negates your entire argument. You need to very precisely express your thoughts if you are to make such bold, fundamental claims.
While it's great that you're taking an interest in this subject, you're clearly speaking from a place of great ignorance, and it would serve you better to learn more about the things you're criticizing before making inflammatory, ill-founded claims. Especially when you start trying to tell a field expert that they don't know their own field.
Using handwavy words you don't seem to understand such as "finite" and "inanimate" while also claiming we don't have a "logical definition" (whatever that means) of intelligence just results in an incomprehensible argument.
The logic and physics that make a computer what it is --- a binary logic playback device.
By design, this is all it is capable of doing.
Assuming a finite, inanimate computer can produce AGI is to assume that "intelligence" is nothing more than a binary logic algorithm. Currently, there is no logical basis for this assumption --- simply because we have yet to produce a logical definition of "intelligence".
Of all people, programmers should understand that you can't program something that is not defined.