All intelligent systems must arise from non-intelligent components.

Except that is not true. Single-celled organisms perform independent acts. That may be tiny, but it is intelligence. Every living being more complex than that is built from that smallest bit of intelligence.

Atoms are not intelligent.

I mean... probably not but? https://youtu.be/ach9JLGs2Yc

Not clear at all why that would be the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_gap.

It must be confessed, moreover, that perception, & that which depends on it, are inexplicable by mechanical causes, that is, by figures & motions, And, supposing that there were a mechanism so constructed as to think, feel & have perception, we might enter it as into a mill. And this granted, we should only find on visiting it, pieces which push one against another, but never anything by which to explain a perception. This must be sought, therefore, in the simple substance, & not in the composite or in the machine. — Gottfried Leibniz, Monadology, sect. 17

The only sensible comment in the entire thread.

I looked this up the other day and "reasoning" in AI is used as far back as McCarthy (1959), and was certainly well established for expert systems in the 80s, so I think it's a little late to complain about it.

McCarthy wasn't infallible & the initial founders of the field were so full of themselves that they thought they were going to have the whole thing figured out in less than one summer. The hype has always been an established part of the AI culture but the people who uncritically buy into it deserve all the ridicule that comes their way.

Computers can't think. Boolean logic is not a sufficient explanation for cognition & never will be.

I think it's very unlikely, in fact physically impossible, that brains are a higher complexity class than classical computers.

I've heard that enough times to know it's a meme b/c no one who says that has an answer why classical computers can not do what a single cell can do. This is before we even get to the unphysical abstractions of infinite tapes & infinite energies inherent in the notion of a Turing machine.

Basically, your position is not serious b/c you haven't actually thought about what you're saying.

Computers don't "do" things in the first place, they compute things. The rest is side effects.

You have to ignore those, otherwise you've declared all computers quantum computers because parts of it use quantum effects.

Brain is a computer, change my mind

Bending over backwards to avoid any hint of anthropromorphization in any LLM thread is one of my least favorite things about HN. It's tired. We fucking know. For anyone who doesn't know, saying it for the 1 billionth time isn't going to change that.