I appreciate the detailed response. I think we disagree on this point at such a fundamental level, we've reached the point of agree to disagree.

I think comparing modern science's understanding of the brain (based on evolutionary biology, complete mapping of simple brains, roach-robot brain connections, physical examination, MRIs, physical experimentation [e.g. lobotomies], developmental biology, study of neurons, biochemical experimentation, etc.) to flat earthers is silly.

There's a fun Veritasium video on the urban legend of going crazy in an anechoic chamber, btw. Plenty of humans, for thousands of years, have voluntarily experienced sensory deprivation with no ill effect. Prisoners have spent decades in solitary isolation (admittedly not 100% disconnect of all senses) without going insane. So, I think you're provably off base there. (And yes, pedantically one could argue that that's not true isolation, but I wonder if that's approaching No True Scotsman). On the other hand, babies who are born without sight or hearing do seem unable to develop, or they only develop to a very limited degree. Sensory input is critical for developing human intelligence when physical development is still occurring (much like LLMs need input). Hellen Keller (who was born with her faculties and lost them at a young again) is a counter-example, but there's some evidence that was she was not entirely deaf or entirely blind, and strong evidence that she was highly controlled by her handlers over the years. Le Scaphandre et le Papillon is another interesting example of how things can go wrong with brains and senses (almost in reverse). You might want to reexamine some assumptions.

I don't agree with this. The push notification is passed on to Apple systems. I don't think you can say it's necessarily an operating system system issue, because push notifications can hit multiple devices (watch, phone, ipad, laptop, etc.) on multiple operating systems. So notifications have to go through Apple servers.

I think the question is whether you trust the Apple servers and all your various devices that are logged into your account.

For extremely sensitive data, I would say no!

I'm glad Apple is making this change.

I would have said that Google's Street View was a bigger deal than the satellite stuff, but it absolutely could have been both.

Apple had acquired several 3D mapping companies before launching Apple Maps, and "Flyover" mode with 3D models of buildings was, IIRC, one of the launch features. (Also IIRC) Flyover mode was limited to a handful of California and other mega U.S. cities.

I live in a mostly suburban location. To-the-front-door directions are pretty much irrelevant to me, so that's outside my realm of experience!

Now that Apple has added ads to Maps, I may very well go back to primarily use Google Maps and Waze.

Dismissed. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2013cv05332/272006/36/

Quotes from your link:

And consumer reports, after trying the new maps, found that, warts and all, they weren't too terrible:

Since the iPhone 5 release, and the Maps fracas, Apple shares lost about 4.5% of their value. That's about $30bn (£18.6bn) in market cap.

And Apple has never recovered!

Apple Maps wasn't good when it launched (and it was bad internationally). No consumers had to pay for Apple Maps or were blocked from using Google Maps or Waze or whatever. It's pretty good now. Apple goofed, Forstall got fired, Tim Cook apologized, and it got better. I just don't have a problem with that order of events. Shit's going to go wrong sometimes, and fixing the problem (and learning from the mistakes) is more important than never screwing up.

Cogito ergo sum?

Unsure if there's a language issue here? Known, meaning proved or generally recognized, NOT meaning fully understood. We know the brain exists, we know that human intelligence exists, we know that the brain produces human intelligence. We don't have an understanding of the mechanisms of the brain, if that's what you thought I meant.

Google Maps (2022)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-sued-negligence-maps-driver-died-collapsed-bridge-north-carolina-hickory/

This stuff can, sadly, happy with Google Maps too. It happened in the days of maps (remember the family that got stranded in a snowstorm in a national park taking roads they shouldn't have been able to?), the days of Garmins, and the days of cellphone mapping. I'm actually not aware of anyone dying from following Apple Maps misdirections, so perhaps it's a bit of blessing for Scott Forstall and Tim Cook.

My experience is pretty much the same as yours. Where I live (not socal!), Apple Maps was fine. It wasn't great, but I never had a bad direction or anything like that (and even Google has those sometimes). I've switched to almost always using Apple Maps now, with Google Maps and Waze as backup.

I've filed a couple of updates (the same updates) to both Apple Maps and Google Maps and Apple implemented them within a month or two. Google never has, despite repeated attempts.

We've both been on slashdot for a long time. It is a community (of sorts!). I do feel that even when disagreeing, one can be cordial. I don't always live up to that, but it's aspirational. Your vocabulary HAS changed. I will not inquire again.

I'm not sure what claim you are referring to? The human brain is a known mechanism of producing intelligence? Anything that exists can be built? "Never" is the weaker position that "possibly" [when it comes to human-producted artificial intelligence of human-type intelligence]?

I feel like your recent replies are written by an LLM. They are so predictable. Post with citations to articles or expert opinions? Ignore.

Other opinions that you disagree with? Respond with vague claims to authority ("my studies") and increasingly angry posts calling people "clueless," "stupid," "idiot," "deranged," "cultists," and "demented" -- and that's just within the last 24 hours.

It can be fun to engage in arguments on Slashdot and elsewhere, but are you Ok? You seem to be increasingly agitated and you're not getting into as much technical detail as you used to. I have enjoyed some past exchanges you.

Cheers.

False. There is a known mechanism. The human brain.

More magical thinking from you. The idea that human-level intelligence is somehow ineffable, undefinable, unknownable is the height of mysticism. This is like some gnostic pastiche of feelings that human-level intelligence is unique and special.

I'll stand with technical advancement every single time as opposed to those who say "impossible."

Well geez drinkypoo, that was my entire entrance to this conversation!

I object to the never part! I do happen to believe that human-level AI is possible, and I think there's a _chance_ that it arises during my lifetime, but I'll straight up say that the timing is just a guess that I have no confidence in.

Hah! I guess that is a matter of your perspective. Sam Altman is (rightfully so, as a huge huckster) public enemy #1 with people trying to attack his home with molotov cocktails. Merriam Webster's 2025 word of the year was "slop" as in AI slop. You have large crowds protesting data centers and AI across the country. The entire state of Maine just banned building more. The county I live in just put a total moratorium on new construction. A few weeks ago a bunch of anti-AI pro-environment signs popped up all over the interstate entrances near me. Maybe within silicon valley or the tech industry bubble there is good press, but it's far from universal!

Regardless, I would again recommend reading the article. It was a fun read, especially considering it was written 30+ years ago.

I just don't agree with that. I think it's a fair proposition to say anything that exists can be built. (Ok, I'll admit I'm opening a massive can of worms with that one!)

If starting with your position -- that we don't know enough -- I still stand with the side that says "never" is the weaker position than "possibly."

Really? I thought the article I linked to was an insightful discussion of the topic. e.g.: "For awhile yet, the general critics of machine sapience will have good press. After all, till we hgave hardware as powerful as a human brain it is probably foolish to think we'll be able to create human equivalent (or greater) intelligence. ... it's more likely that devising the software will be a tricky process, involving lots of false starts and experimentation. If so so, the arrival of self-aware machines will not happen till after the development of hardware that is substantially more powerful than humans' natural equipment." Etc. I would highly suggest reading it.

I think you're shifting the goalposts a bit here and not responding to what I actually said. I said that it is magical thinking to believe that "human-type intelligence is unique and can never be replicated, simulated, or surpassed."

For one thing, I think it is possible that human-level intelligence has evolved elsewhere. I don't see why we would have to be unique.

Secondly, I don't know how to define consciousness, and I don't know how to define it in an artificial context. I don't know if consciousness is necessary for intelligence.

I also don't know how long transistors will be our top computing technology? I guess we're within a decade of no longer being able to shrink circuitry, as we are close to coming up on physical boundaries that we don't know a way around. I have never claimed that silicon chips are going to to lead to superintelligence or that LLMS are going to lead to superintelligence.

What I do know is that it's an unimaginably massive universe out there. To me, it seems foolhardy to make claims that something can never happen. We are barely a century into the electric age. We are well under a century into the era of integrated circuits. Who knows what comes next? I don't feel comfortable saying "never" in that context!

I also know that exponential change is intuitively difficult to understand.

If billions of years of evolution can produce a human brain, why can't we simulate one? If not now, in 100 years? 500 years? 10,000 years?

Hah. That too. Then again, I think the last Apple commercial I actually remember is the dancing iPod silhouettes. Or Ellen Feiss (beep beep beep beep beep)? Do they even make commercials any more?

I have not followed it very closely, but there seems to be some strong progress in getting LLMs involved in decompilation. Nothing may be safe!