Please let's resist taking this thread flameward. The GP contains both a substantive point and provocation, which isn't great. In such cases, the helpful way to respond is to de-escalate, by addressing the substantive point and ignoring the provocation.

I'm not the same guy, but I'd like to answer: Familiar, that's how it feels. I'm confident that I'm right about the other matter, and subjects are related, so I'm not bothered.

I don't think openai was formed to concentrate on neural networks, and I think we can assume the members are well aware of the limitations of neural nets.

I just don't understand the folks that are so confident that strong AI is either not possible, or not achievable within our lifetimes.

If you're in the camp that thinks it's not possible, then you must ascribe some sort of magical or spiritual significance to the human brain.

If you don't think it's possible inside of 100 years, then you're probably just extrapolating on history. The thing about breakthroughs is they never look like they're coming. Until they do.

I ascribe spiritual significance to the mind (not the brain).

If consciousness is more than a mere product of brain's functioning, Strong AI does not have to be beyond the horizon.