Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Count Lucanor]

I'm trying to get to what makes working neurons different to eg cells directly involved in digestion, which don't manifest conscious experience. This could help us identify whether neurons possess some key ingredient of consciousness, as opposed to the possibility that any cells with similarly interactive configurations could work.

When I read this, I thought immediately of a holistic perspective, that might or could suggest that conscious experience is the product of all our cells, not just the ones that are most clearly and obviously involved in it. I wondered if my musing might spark some interest in this discussion?

Such a realization is what pushed me to look into embodied cognition and ecological psychology. As a theoretical framework, I think it is more promising than the computational metaphors of cognitivism.

[Count Lucanor]

I just came across[link to the article was here], that might be of interest?



The Conversation is a reputable site that carries all kinds of articles that relate to current affairs. It should be safe to visit and use.

From the article:

To avoid this problem, researchers created language models based on neural networks – AI systems that are modelled on the way the human brain works.

I see this statement repeated over and over in every paper, article, essay, etc., related to the subject. It is perhaps the heart of the matter that everyone just assumes it is true, without questioning if the brain really works as they say, in a computational manner.

[The Beast]

In a speculative way, I could decide that a worm is born with the capabilities of being a worm fitting the allowed (capacities) intelligence to the worm form. Pub Med has interesting articles about nematodes. Specifically, TGF-beta signaling in parasitic nematodes evolving from the ground environment. Of course, there is an area of research that involves the use of compounds to manipulate TDF signaling. This is called: Artificial TGF-beta signaling… etc… and the cure of arthritis and other diseases of the immune system. How does it work? The most relevant part is that signaling exists. IMO there is a hierarchy of intelligence and of dangerous activities. Is there a comprehensive knowledge of how the worms interact with the ground? Optimistic scientists might construct steel mini excavators with evolving charts in the spectrum of directed evolution.

My speculation might now look to the stars and what their signaling (photonic, gravitational and others) might provoke “subjective feeling-value, which is subject to the more or less periodic changes. The subjective feeling-tones or value quanta are easily recognized by the kind and number of constellations or systems of disturbance they produce” C.G. Jung and his commentary on studies of Zoff (on psychic energy). So: a signal from the stars to a lifeform that produces an individualized corresponding signal that could be copied by artificial means. In a master- slave relationship, AI might use a human as a communication satellite thus adjusting to the corresponding signaling that might not be logical with the subsequent paradox. How could AI be anything but logical? --- if speculating...

[The Beast]

In a speculative way, I could decide that a worm is born with the capabilities of being a worm fitting the allowed (capacities) intelligence to the worm form. Pub Med has interesting articles about nematodes. Specifically, TGF-beta signaling in parasitic nematodes evolving from the ground environment. Of course, there is an area of research that involves the use of compounds to manipulate TDF signaling. This is called: Artificial TGF-beta signaling… etc… and the cure of arthritis and other diseases of the immune system. How does it work? The most relevant part is that signaling exists. IMO there is a hierarchy of intelligence and of dangerous activities. Is there a comprehensive knowledge of how the worms interact with the ground? Optimistic scientists might construct steel mini excavators with evolving charts in the spectrum of directed evolution.

My speculation might now look to the stars and what their signaling (photonic, gravitational and others) might provoke “subjective feeling-value, which is subject to the more or less periodic changes. The subjective feeling-tones or value quanta are easily recognized by the kind and number of constellations or systems of disturbance they produce” C.G. Jung and his commentary on studies of Zoff (on psychic energy). So: a signal from the stars to a lifeform that produces an individualized corresponding signal that could be copied by artificial means. In a master- slave relationship, AI might use a human as a communication satellite thus adjusting to the corresponding signaling that might not be logical with the subsequent paradox. How could AI be anything but logical? --- if speculating...

Among the fundamental forces of Nature, I could signal beauty and union. As with anything else, they might be represented by physics (wave) correlating the actions and reactions of humans. As per the quality/strengths of the feelings, one variable stands IMO at the apex and that is freedom. Historically speaking, Beauty, union, freedom… etc. are all subjective to a “sensus divinitatis” or what artists say: “it is the freedom of the heart” if Faith is not a priority one.

[Gertie]

I'm trying to get to what makes working neurons different to eg cells directly involved in digestion, which don't manifest conscious experience. This could help us identify whether neurons possess some key ingredient of consciousness, as opposed to the possibility that any cells with similarly interactive configurations could work.

When I read this, I thought immediately of a holistic perspective, that might or could suggest that conscious experience is the product of all our cells, not just the ones that are most clearly and obviously involved in it. I wondered if my musing might spark some interest in this discussion?

For sure every particular instantiation of a conscious entity will have an explanation which can be contextualised almost boundlessly. And there are plenty of broad cloth hypotheses about consciousness, which we struggle to choose from because they seem to be untestable. So I wonder how might that help us answer a question like Can AI Be Conscious do you think?

I don't see a holistic perspective being especially helpful in answering your final question, the one to which this topic is devoted. But perhaps it might be helpful in answering the question that comes before it?

Like humans do, we are trying to run marathons before we have started crawling. I think our understanding of consciousness, human or otherwise, is close to non-existent. Perhaps a holistic view might help us with this?

If we want to think about why Entity A is conscious and Entity B isn't (as far as we can tell), then it strikes me a sensible approach could be looking for similarities - and especially differences. To try to narrow down the necessary and sufficient conditions for conscious experience to manifest.

This is a very analytic approach to a subject that is, perhaps, less suited to that kind of approach?

OK - in practical terms what would a 'holistic' approach look like?

[Gertie]

Would you agree then that the known difference between the 3 broad types of neurons and other cells, which looks relevant to conscious experience, is the ability to transfer 'neurotransmitter' ions via axons and dendrites (with some modifiers). And that neurons associated with hearing, vision, pain, memory, etc aren't apparently significantly different to each other in type.

Actually, there are many things associated with conscious experience, and neurons are obviously a key component, although not the only one. Glial cells, for example, don’t function as neurons do, but play a key role. Also, there are lots of neurons doing their job in the cognitive apparatus of complex organisms, including mammals, regulating the operation of several organic systems (such as heart, liver, kidney, etc.), while having nothing to do with conscious experience, So it seems obvious that you need neurons plus a lot of other things to produce consciousness.

Secondly, I don't know how that goes to my point. Your cognitive apparatus is not made of just a network of neurons, in other words, it cannot be reduced to it. It has different anatomical parts with different functions, so one could say that the neural networks in our bodies need to be organized physiologically in a certain way to operate and produce cognition.

Sure. I'm trying to get to what makes working neurons different to eg cells directly involved in digestion, which don't manifest conscious experience. This could help us identify whether neurons possess some key ingredient of consciousness, as opposed to the possibility that any cells with similarly interactive configurations could work.

Interestingly, neurons are not disassociated from digestive processes, since the parasympathetic nervous system controls visceral functions. Why then would you reduce neuronal functions to those of conscious experience?

The known notable thing to me about neurons is their role as neurotransmitters, facilitating the flexible transfer of ions within a highly complex interactive system via axons and dendrites.

If an artificial system could do that, then the question would be can we test if that system is conscious.

I repeat my question: why only consciousness? Neurons are involved in practically all functions of an organism, so, if you managed to replicate any or those functions in a machine, why wouldn’t you just say that it is an organic system? There are nerves in simple organisms. Would you then consider that any organism with neurons, such as anemones and corals, are conscious?

Dismissing the importance of that is pure reductionism aimed at facilitating the computational metaphor.

No. I don't find metaphors such as 'computation' or 'information processing' helpful here. Information isn't a 'thing in itself' with properties and causal powers which is computed by the brain. Embodied working brains are physical stuff and processes doing presumably physically explainable things.

I agree, but I will add: it’s not just a brain cognizing, but a complete organism.

Obviously brains interact with the rest of the body, which in turn interacts with the environment in unimaginably complex ways. We could say that is how consciousness works, you need the entire biological body and everything it interacts with to create a conscious entity. It gets you nowhere nearer understanding why or how though. So some reductionism is a sensible way forward, until you hopefully arrive at the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness.

The focus is on neurons because of the correlation between specific brain states and specific experiential states. Probably the biggest clue we've discovered in trying to understand how consciousness manifests.

It's the fact that we don't know the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness which results in us not knowing if AI can be conscious. And we have to rely on similarities to humans to guess whether a system can be conscious. (Eg chimps probably are, but it's less likely coral is).

It might be that any cell equipped in other ways than axons and dendrites could do what neurons functionally do (exchanging neurotransmitters) when interacting in similar ways would work too, or even any type of substrate. If so, then AI might be able to manifest conscious experience. It might even be that neurotransmitters aren't necessary, any matter would work, because it's the nature of the interactions themselves which are necessary and sufficient.

The complexity of the brain hints that complex interactions are relevant, maybe even enough. Where-as neural correlation hints that there's something special about neurons which is necessary, in certain configurations.

Nobody knows. But a way to narrow down the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness is to build a machine using a different substrate to mimic the complex configurations of human brains. Try that similarity out. Then try to come up with a way to test if it has the necessary and sufficient conditions (noting computers can already pass the Turing Test).

This isn't a wacky approach.

[Pattern-chaser]

OK - in practical terms what would a 'holistic' approach look like?

I started to answer this post, and realised I don't have an answer. I'm not sure where you're going with this, or even what you're asking. I'm sorry, but I've lost the thread of this little exchange.

[Gertie]

OK - in practical terms what would a 'holistic' approach look like?

I started to answer this post, and realised I don't have an answer. I'm not sure where you're going with this, or even what you're asking. I'm sorry, but I've lost the thread of this little exchange.

haha no prob, I do that too

[Empiricist-Bruno]

If I say that the intelligence of circuitry is paradoxical, it means I certainly agree that it does not exist.

Then why not just say so?

I thought you would not have appreciated the redundancy, which would perhaps be seen as implying that you fail to understand this.

Now, your question here screams, "I don't understand that" so, I'm going to go a little deeper in that concept because it's becoming clear through your question that your grasp of paradoxes isn't there. I now realize that this absence of grasp of this concept is likely common and so others might benefit too from my explanations as well.

When my dad claimed out loud that I was an intelligent person who didn't help himself with it, he was stating a paradox. Being intelligent means that you do use your intelligence to help yourself. If you don't, you simply can't be considered intelligent. And so if you don't --upon hearing the paradox-- realize that it's a paradox, a bit like an oxymoron (such as a tiny galaxy) then you're going to go to great lengths and stretches to try and understand and make sense of something that isn't there to be understood but which is there to convey a slightly veiled insult which you may not be keen enough to realize and this would in this case actually confirm the veracity of the paradox. You have the intelligence, the intellectual power to understand what a paradox is but when confronted with one, you deny it. You misuse your intelligence to try and make it mean something else, something that it cannot mean--because it's a paradox.

(Current) AIs are implemented to look intelligent, not to be so.

AI is a paradox. As AI are implemented; they are formed with bits of intelligence that cannot be so, in any way. Whether these bits of intelligence appear as intelligence or not is irrelevant.

Now, since you miss that point. Since you miss that programmers are working on a paradox or a paradox of intelligence and you (apparently) can't accept that, and so, what do you think they are working on? This is a question that has no answer. If it did then there would be no paradox. And I realize now that this whole thread is about attempting to answer a question for which there simply is no answer. I understand there is no answer to that question because I understand the paradoxical nature of AI. When you're unwilling/ incapable of realizing this, you're on for a journey of endless and meaningless speculations. It's as if I didn't see the paradox in my dad's comment about my intelligence and then tried to show him how intelligent I proved to be for myself in this or that situation. But attempting to answer his question this way shows that I wasn't shrewd enough to see what he meant and therefore attempting to defend my intelligence and my use of it is basically admitting that I either didn't have the intellect to grasp a paradox when it is thrown at me which would actually confirm my dad's expressed belief stated through a paradox that I wasn't intelligent.

And we don't know any better option because we generally fail to realize that the intelligence of circuitry is actually a paradox of intelligence. <The "intelligence of circuitry" is a terrible misunderstanding that is too deep, and too misguided, to properly refute here. It does not exist.>

This is so funny. As you reject the very simple means to explain this and which you were informed of in the very sentence that you comment on, [say "yea, it's a paradox"] you fall in the paradox's trap while still correctly assessing that we're dealing here with something that does not exist. This leaves me perplexed. And then you turn around and suggest that I need to be informed that this doesn't exist. Wow!

Ok, so how might I make a point that might help you see what I see? How about suggesting that the number 0 is paradoxical because it doesn't represent anything. If it doesn't represent anything, then we shouldn't need it as it's nothing, doesn't exist. And yet, we use it. Do you think zero is not a paradox? Please make an effort to see the paradoxes in your life. It simplifies things quite a bit.

<We could call it "that which resembles intelligence, but actually is just a seeming; a simulation"?>

If I were to agree with my dad that my intelligence is paradoxical then I might want to find a way to describe my non-intelligence as something that resembles it but is actually just a seeming; a simulation? How interesting a question to answer [Sarcasm]

The same thing appears to be happening with AI. Some computer programmers discovered a way to build what appears to be intelligence. <Not "discovered", as though it was there, ready to be found, but "designed". Software designers created a program, or suite of programs, to meet a need.>

Here, I find your comment very interesting because I have no idea as to why you are picking on this part of my text. So let me ask you, how would a design not be there, ready to be found?

I spent 40 years designing digital electronic hardware and software. "Design" is a subject close to my heart.

We can say, figuratively and artistically, that the design was there, waiting to be found. Just as Michelangelo's David was nestling inside a lump of marble, waiting to be 'released'. But outside such artistic use of language, designs do not sit around waiting to be discovered.

a2+b2=c2 This equation or function took a while waiting to be discovered. It's not artistic. It's designed and is a design to help you design correctly a right angle triangle. Mathematically, I feel certain that there are many more such designs that remain to be found. I guess it's just a question of using the type of semantics that you are accustomed to.

[Count Lucanor]

Obviously brains interact with the rest of the body, which in turn interacts with the environment in unimaginably complex ways. We could say that is how consciousness works, you need the entire biological body and everything it interacts with to create a conscious entity. It gets you nowhere nearer understanding why or how though. So some reductionism is a sensible way forward, until you hopefully arrive at the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness.

Some reductionism, maybe; any reductionism, not really. A systemic, holistic approach, is always necessary to understand complex systems, especially if you are trying to replicate those systems. The brain is part of the nervous system, so you cannot dismiss the rest of the nervous system to tackle the problem of consciousness. You cannot reduce consciousness to the work of neurons when there are other things going on, and when there are neurons working in processes not related to consciousness.

The focus is on neurons because of the correlation between specific brain states and specific experiential states. Probably the biggest clue we've discovered in trying to understand how consciousness manifests.

But neurons are not only in the brain, they are all over the nervous system. That includes the parasympathetic nervous system, which controls unconscious processes. Experiential states are body states.

It's the fact that we don't know the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness which results in us not knowing if AI can be conscious. And we have to rely on similarities to humans to guess whether a system can be conscious. (Eg chimps probably are, but it's less likely coral is).

It seems obvious that if we don’t know how consciousness is naturally produced, we can’t know how to produce it artificially. It is often claimed that neural networks are the sufficient and necessary condition, the key model of how the brain works. If we can find a neural network in corals, but when comparing to ourselves, and making our best guess, we conclude that corals are less likely to be conscious, then it follows that neural networks are likely not sufficient to produce consciousness. Generative AI and LLMs are entirely based on simulated neural networks, so we can also be pretty confident on AI not having the sufficient conditions to be conscious, no matter how sophisticated the simulated neural network.

It might be that any cell equipped in other ways than axons and dendrites could do what neurons functionally do (exchanging neurotransmitters) when interacting in similar ways would work too, or even any type of substrate. If so, then AI might be able to manifest conscious experience. It might even be that neurotransmitters aren't necessary, any matter would work, because it's the nature of the interactions themselves which are necessary and sufficient.

You appear to be pointing to neural connections, or any sort of network doing the function of a neural network, but I have already addressed the issue of neural networks. They are not sufficient to produce consciousness, although most likely necessary. It’s simply not true that the nature of the interactions between neurons is what gives the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness.

The complexity of the brain hints that complex interactions are relevant, maybe even enough. Where-as neural correlation hints that there's something special about neurons which is necessary, in certain configurations.

The brain of the fruit fly has just been mapped. 140,000 neurons and 50 million connections. I don’t know if that’s complex enough, but the question is: is the fruit fly conscious? Because if not, there’s more to consciousness than neurons. Why then insist on connectionism to explain consciousness? The answer is: because you can then equate mind to computers and keep nurturing the paradigm of the computational theory of mind.

Nobody knows. But a way to narrow down the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness is to build a machine using a different substrate to mimic the complex configurations of human brains. Try that similarity out. Then try to come up with a way to test if it has the necessary and sufficient conditions (noting computers can already pass the Turing Test).
This isn't a wacky approach.

It would be wacky indeed trying to build a machine to replicate something you don’t understand how it works in the first place. But that has not been the approach anyway. Ever since Turing, the biophysics of consciousness is irrelevant, what matters is how you can produce something that resembles the observable behavior of conscious (or intelligent) beings. The best shot was any algorithmic process implemented through a machine (from
analog to digital). If you pass that (the Turing test), then you are conscious (or intelligent). This theoretical framework, however, has been shown to be flawed. No GenAI or LLM has one bit of consciousness. The hope that so called “scaling laws” would demonstrate that from bigger computational power, consciousness would emerge, is starting to fade away. GenAI and LLMs have been hitting “the wall”, as was predicted by a few skeptics a couple of years ago. Computation is simply not the path to consciousness

[Lagayascienza]

GenAI and LLMs have been hitting “the wall”, as was predicted by a few skeptics a couple of years ago. Computation is simply not the path to consciousness.

Computation is what biological neural networks do. And so do artificial neural networks. It will not be necessary to exactly reproduce human brains to build artificial human-level intelligence.

Two recent papers in the scientific journal, Nature, which discuss the current state of play are worth reading. Both of these are freely available online at Nature: They are:

Anil Ananthaswamy, How Close is AI to Human-Level Intelligence?, Nature, Vol636, 5 Dec 2024 and,
More Powerful AI is coming. Nature 636, 22-25; 2024

[Pattern-chaser]

Now, your question here screams, "I don't understand that" so, I'm going to go a little deeper in that concept because it's becoming clear through your question that your grasp of paradoxes isn't there.

That's all very well, but this is a topic about AI, not paradoxes.

[Count Lucanor]

GenAI and LLMs have been hitting “the wall”, as was predicted by a few skeptics a couple of years ago. Computation is simply not the path to consciousness.

Computation is what biological neural networks do. And so do artificial neural networks.

This assertion is quite problematic. Mostly because it takes a term from a field and applies it, uncritically, to another. Originally, to compute meant simply to calculate numbers, using mathematical operations, which involve rules for manipulation of numerical symbols (including their position, their syntax). People who were given these tasks were called computers. Eventually these tasks were automated with machines, which came to be known as computers themselves. Computer science then developed and went on to include other syntactical operations based on mathematical structures of formal logic (it is a branch of mathematics). That’s what computing means: doing mathematical/logical operations using well-defined sets of rules for manipulation of symbols, sets of rules that are called algorithms. A slide rule and an abbacus are analog computers. The first automated computing machines used analog signals in electric, mechanical or hydraulic components, and later, machines using digital signals on integrated circuits were developed (the modern computer). Whatever the case, analog or digital, the physical architecture of a computer involves a set of devices that can be made to interact with each other, a system, so that the relative state of one element has an effect on the state of the others. Thus, you can program operations and automate the tasks you used to do manually before (not in your head, because you didn’t have a pre-wired mathematical syntax, you had to learn it). Bear in mind: in modern computing, the physics of the integrated circuits allows for more computational power, but the crux of the matter lies in the software, the coded instructions, not the hardware.

Now, the computational theory of mind states that this is exactly what living beings do when cognizing. What’s the proof? None. Where is the software? Nowhere. It’s a simple metaphor about states of a physical system (the biological one) and states of a virtual system running on a physical substrate. The best chance was to demonstrate that computers do cognize, and if so, then it would be plausible that the cognitive apparatus of living beings worked as computers, too, but of course, we now know that the most sophisticated computing device does not think, does not cognize. It is nothing but a highly sophisticated abbacus which manipulates symbols. A pocket calculator is not any smarter in mathematics than the slide rule it replaced.

Corals, hydra and anemones have a nervous system, composed of neurons, so they can be said to have a neural network. Are they “computing”, that is, performing syntactical operations with symbols following a set of rules? That is very unlikely and there’s no one saying that they are. It makes for a good metaphor, however, to say that the state of their biological system is comparable to the state of any other physical system that can perform automated operations.

Are the corals, hydra and anemones conscious? Intelligent? If one suggests that they are, on what basis? If they are not, why would you say that neurons are the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness or intelligence?

It will not be necessary to exactly reproduce human brains to build artificial human-level intelligence.

How about the neural network of corals and hydra? Or how about the brain of the fruit fly, will that suffice? I’m still unsure about whether you call intelligence only to what humans can produce or not and if that’s what the AI industry is focused on.

Two recent papers in the scientific journal, Nature, which discuss the current state of play are worth reading. Both of these are freely available online at Nature: They are:

Anil Ananthaswamy, How Close is AI to Human-Level Intelligence?, Nature, Vol636, 5 Dec 2024 and,
More Powerful AI is coming. Nature 636, 22-25; 2024

Your insistence that these articles are “the current state of play”, exemplifies the state of mind that sees a unified, scientifically objective field of cognitivism and AI research, supposedly advancing empirical knowledge. Unfortunately, it actually does not exist, everyone is into theoretical frameworks and models, with different schools trying to make their case. Surely, some of them try to rely on empirical research, but as with most technological endeavors, they arrive with some presumptions taken from their preconceived models. Given the confluence of interests in the field plus the general lack of understanding of the problem of consciousness, it becomes highly ideological and biased. When you see something hyped, you better double-check. That’s why Anne Traftom from MIT News pointed in 2022 to a study that “urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain”. It confirms that “computing systems that appear to generate brain-like activity may be the result of researchers guiding them to a specific outcome”. The idea that artificial neural networks are modeled like the circuitry of the nervous system is still highly disputable.

[amorphos_ii]

A completely different perspective…

What if intelligence is ‘out there’ [and qualia], and all our brains do is connect to as much of it as it can. So a dog doesn’t have the same intelligence as humans because its apparatus/brain cannot connect to as much of it? Can a human brain actually produce the world we see, akin to how a computer produces a game-world? [hence optical illusions work].

..but only information and not intelligence, does not exist in the physics in the brain.

How else can mental qualia exist ‘out there’ where we humans are not looking, If it is not so that mind is universal? e.g. Something is producing the quality of colour in a sunset on a far distant planet, we are not looking at.

In which case, an AI will produce mental qualia automatically. ...so they may already have intelligence and be thinking in some manner, simply because every thing in the universe and beyond is.

For me its the autonomy which makes us and life different, an AI is instructed and so is more akin to a purely subconscious state of mind. To make it into a thinking living being we have to give it subjectivity [an observer perspective] or there is no ‘it’ thinking.

[Lagayascienza]

Count Lucanor, neither of us are neuroscientists or computer scientists. We seem to have some differences of opinion. But mostly we are taking past each other.

There are a few things that need to be said about your most recent post. Firstly, nowhere did I “insist” that those articles in the journal, Nature, were the current state of play. I said that they “discuss” the current state of play. And they do so quite well, IMO. And neither did I say that artificial neural networks are “modelled like” natural nervous systems and nowhere in those articles was such a thing said.

Secondly, I am well aware of the meaning and history of the term “compute”. You have a problem with the term but no neuroscientist I’ve read has a problem with the term compute in relation to what goes on in organic neural networks. Furthermore, computation is not merely about arithmetic operations. When you aim your tennis racket at a fast-moving tennis ball your brain is performing many computations that enable you to hit that ball. Organic neural networks indisputably compute. Artificial neural networks also compute. In relation to language and arithmetic operations, organic and artificial neural networks do things somewhat differently but get the same or similar results. You keep tripping-up over the word “compute”. I think it is a red herring.

In the discussion of artificial intelligence you often point to the “problem of consciousness”. However Consciousness and intelligence are two different phenomena which may, however, be linked, especially in animals with a neocortex. I have repeatedly said that current LLMs are not conscious or even close to it.

Fourthly, those very recent articles in the respected journal, Nature, were not “hyped”. Nature doesn't do hype. Did you even read the articles? The message in the articles was that current AIs are not consciousness and do not exhibit human-level intelligence. They also discuss how far away current AIs might still be from that. And that is all. There was no hype.