Gonna ramble on here since I don't have many friends who care enough to think about AGI....<br><br>Am I crazy to think that we won't be close to AGI until we have a better understanding of the patterns we see in biology and genetics?  We seem to focus so much on the brain... treating it as if brains and computers could be interchangeable.  In training OpenAI 5 the bot is constantly iterated over and learns from its past mistakes.  However, in real life what matters most in evolution is that the genotype is rewarded/punished.  Of the rewards and experiences the phenotype has," the one that matters most is if it is being rewarded with procreation.  This has to be a huge key to why living creatures are so adaptable.  I almost wonder if there might be a way to compress part of the bot into something that emulates genetics.  This way you could have two types of iteration going on.  You could be rewarding its phenotype in short term to decide eventually on whether on not to reward the genotype... eventually toss the phenotype and take the genotype and mutate it slightly and do the process again.  How you could use neural networks to emulate this... I'm not sure.  There might be a way to essentially just "fix" a portion of it and call it the genotype and let the remaining part of it adapt as it currently does.<br><br>In short", my main concern for the challenge of AGI is: What is a brain without genetics?<br><br>I know there has been some AI that is meant to emulate Darwinian evolution, but from what I gather most of these things were done more in terms of a fun exercise/challenge and less to explore if it understanding it better could become an integral part of creating adaptable AI.  If the last 100 years had a theme that humanity has learned it would be the power of iteration.  Modern AI was in essence was kickstarted by Darwin's findings and I wonder how well this has been explored.<br><br><br><br>The comments on consciousness I find to be funny.  We haven't ever been able to even define it.  How can we get anywhere near deciding when computers have it?  It's so weird that intelligent brains are tempted by these Questions.  I go there too all the time.. but it seems like an exercise in insanity... or like some kind of religion.  The binding problem in particular in neuroscience makes even less sense when you take into account modern physics.  One of my very few takeaways from my course in modern physics is that there is no such thing as a simultaneous event.  If there is no such thing as a simultaneous event.. how can a brain consisting of matter in space have a unified experience?  This stuff is so goofy.  The more I think about it the less it makes sense.