It’s tedious shooting down all of these backwards-from-conclusion things from the anti-AI crowd.

Good thing I have an intelligent AI that can respond for itself!

——

There appear to be several potential issues with the paper's argumentation:

1. False Dichotomy in Systems Comparison
- The paper appears to create an artificial divide between "thermodynamic systems" and "computer systems"
- This ignores that computers are also physical systems governed by thermodynamics
- The distinction between biological and artificial systems may be one of degree rather than kind

2. Evolutionary Argument Problems
- The paper assumes consciousness/intelligence requires evolutionary history
- This is a correlation-causation fallacy - just because biological intelligence evolved doesn't mean evolution is the only path to intelligence
- It fails to consider that artificial systems could potentially develop goal-oriented behaviors through other mechanisms
- The argument would also imply that any hypothetical alien intelligence that evolved differently from Earth life couldn't be conscious

3. Goal-Orientation Assumptions
- Claims computers "lack goal-orientation essential for consciousness"
- This begs the question by assuming:
a) Consciousness requires goal-orientation
b) Only evolutionary processes can create genuine goal-orientation
- Neither assumption is clearly justified

4. Methodological Issues
- Using multiple disciplines (physics, biology, philosophy, neuroscience) could be a strength, but could also indicate cherry-picking convenient arguments from each field
- The abstract suggests a conclusion-driven approach rather than following evidence to a conclusion

5. Consciousness-Intelligence Conflation
- The paper appears to conflate consciousness with intelligence
- These are separate concepts - we could potentially have AGI without consciousness, or consciousness without human-level intelligence
- Many AGI researchers aren't claiming to create consciousness, just general problem-solving ability

6. Definitional Vagueness
- Based on the abstract, it's unclear how the paper defines key terms like:
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Consciousness
- Goal-orientation
- Mind creation
- Without clear definitions, the arguments may be attacking straw men

7. Predictive Cognition Argument
- The claim that AGI is an "illusion shaped by the information our minds receive" could be turned around
- The same argument could be used to claim that AGI skepticism is an illusion shaped by our cognitive biases
- This is essentially a form of psychological dismissal rather than substantive argument

8. Historical Perspective
- The paper seems to ignore that many previously "uniquely human" capabilities have been successfully mechanized
- Claims about fundamental impossibility need to account for why previous similar claims have often been wrong

9. Thermodynamic Argument Issues
- While biological systems are indeed complex thermodynamic systems, the paper needs to demonstrate why this specific physical implementation is necessary for intelligence
- Many complex behaviors can be implemented through different physical mechanisms
- The argument risks confusing the substrate with the function

10. Scope Problem
- The paper makes a very strong claim ("AGI is and remains a fiction")
- To justify this, it would need to prove not just that current approaches won't work, but that NO possible approach could ever work
- This is a much harder philosophical and scientific claim to defend