"emergent superintelligent AI" is as much superstition as believing in imaterial souls. One company literally used the term "people spirits" to refer to how LLMs behave in their official communications.

It's a cult. Like many cults, it tries to latch on science to give itself legitimacy. In this case, mathematics. It has happened before many times.

You're trying to say that, because it's computers and stuff, it's science and therefore based on reason. Well, it's not. It's just a bunch of non sequitur.

I didn't say anything about "emergent superintelligent AI".

I'm confused.

We are on a comment section about a post with AGI in the title.

The term is scientifically vague, but it is estabilished in the popular culture that it is related to superintelligence and emerging behavior. If you don't agree, you owe the reader a better definition.

Given this context, if you're not talking about that, what are you talking about then?

The thread though is more broadly about AI in general. My remark was wrt the fact that talk of "souls" in context of AI usually boils down to drawing a red line between what AI could be even in principle, as humans (i.e. "no soul" -> "it's not actually intelligent" etc; some folk use "no qualia" to the same effect, and it's the same argument in disguise). The problem with it is that there's nothing about either AI or human intelligence so far that requires a concept such as soul, so religion aside, the only reason to reach for it is if you're trying to draw that line and running out of arguments as to why it should be there.

I just asked some user "what makes you think the human brain is based on mathematics?"

All this nonsense about souls was filled up by people trying to predict what my reasoning was, instead of _actually answering the question_ (which, apparently, can only be answered here _in opposition_ to something, not with plain honest words).

I left the line to be drawn by whoever answered it, and the answers show an abundance of misunderstanding about science.