> If we created intelligences and set them in competition with each other we may get something to evolve millions of years later.
Why millions of years? Do you agree or disagree that humans can develop technology faster than nature could evolve it on its own? It took maybe 70 years for computers to go from not existing, to matching humans on visual recognition tasks.
As you just acknowledged, it took nature at least billions of years to evolve humans. Is not focused technological development obviously orders of magnitude faster at evolving intelligence than nature? Does it not then follow that artificial general intelligence is a lot closer than an argument based on natural evolution might imply?
Why millions of years? Do you agree or disagree that humans can develop technology faster than nature could evolve it on its own? It took maybe 70 years for computers to go from not existing, to matching humans on visual recognition tasks.
As you just acknowledged, it took nature at least billions of years to evolve humans. Is not focused technological development obviously orders of magnitude faster at evolving intelligence than nature? Does it not then follow that artificial general intelligence is a lot closer than an argument based on natural evolution might imply?
What exactly is not logical about this argument?