<i>&quot;a natural extension of this leads to consciousness&quot;</i><p>Did I say that? In fact I didn&#x27;t.<p>I don&#x27;t care what you call anything, the fact remains that AGI doesn&#x27;t exist today, but we can work on the best guesses at what we think will get us there. That is the exact OPPOSITE of faith if there ever was one.<p>We are working on computer vision with segmentation. That&#x27;s a tiny subsection of supervised learning. By the way you say pattern matching as though it&#x27;s some trivial thing. In fact that&#x27;s what a hefty portion of our brain does to understand anything - so it&#x27;s actually very important and our visual system (eyeball to cortex to representation) is arguably the most important part of that.<p>I couldn&#x27;t care less about whether a computer has consciousness anyway. I think the whole consciousness argument is a waste of time (which is why I called it a rabbit hole previously).<p>I think you&#x27;re hung up on this religious thing and not able to discriminate between actually building things that may be able to lead to AGI versus writing novels and daydreaming like so many &quot;futurists.&quot;