>>They’re not capable of becoming like human level general intelligences, because they can’t do complex multi-stage reasoning, like you need to do science. Ahahahhahaha... How about chess? How is it going, did someone win against a super computer lately? https://www.quora.com/Can-a-human-win-in-chess-against-a-computer >>In 2016 Stockfish-8, an open-source chess engine, was the world’s computer chess champion. It evaluated 70 million chess positions per second and had centuries of accumulated human chess strategies and decades of computer experience to draw upon. It played efficiently and brutally, mercilessly beating all its human challengers without an ounce of finesse. Enter deep learning. On Dec. 7, 2017, Google’s deep-learning chess program AlphaZero thrashed Stockfish-8. The chess engines played 100 games, with AlphaZero winning 28 and tying 72. It didn’t lose a single game. AlphaZero did only 80,000 calculations per second, as opposed to Stockfish-8’s 70 million calculations, and it took just four hours to learn chess from scratch by playing against itself a few million times and optimizing its neural networks as it learned from its experience. **AlphaZero didn’t learn anything from humans or chess games played by humans. It taught itself and, in the process, derived strategies never seen before. In a commentary in Science magazine, former world chess champion Garry Kasparov wrote that by learning from playing itself, AlphaZero developed strategies that “reflect the truth” of chess rather than reflecting “the priorities and prejudices” of the programmers.** Now fast forward, what could possibly happen if a machine learns to build and program itself? There was a movie with a famous body builder about that. Now maybe it's going to be just as dumb as an insect... Wouldn't that be enough already?