What's your view on the current state of AI?

>ability != capability

Why do you keep using pattern matching as a term. Thats supervised learning. Neural networks are unsupervised learning. You dont explain how patterns are initially learned. Your term is underdeveloped. You need a better explanation and even if the ann is just "pattern matching" then so is the brain.

Your book is bad and you should feel bad.

>Consciousness is infinite

lol wut

>All those things being done under the umbrella of AI are not really AI but simply pattern matching

implying the brain doesn't actually work this way...this is why conspiracy theories abound, as humans try to match what they think are patterns to real events

>It wont be until quantum computers where AI will truly develop

Penrose "brain is quantum" meme, disproven years ago

the car is not able to drive with out gas.

what did you even set out to prove?

>>It wont be until quantum computers where AI will truly develop, even then it will take hundreds of years.
I hate this meme

>what did you even set out to prove?
a knife is able to cut, but blunt knife isn't capable to cut
so as human brain is able to solve all problems, but must be constantly sharpen to be capable to solve problems.

>Neural networks are unsupervised learning
This is not (necessarily) true. Neural nets can be used for supervised and unsupervised learning. A convolutional net trained on a dataset is undergoing supervised learning; an autoencoder performs unsupervised learning.

>Why do you keep using pattern matching as a term.
Why can't you read? I never used pattern matching as a term, those are quotes, and quotes of people I clearly characterized as idiots to boot.
How are you even able to misread something that badly? There are hyperlinks in front of each of them showing that they're quotes from those locations, and they're formatted in green specifically so image boards like this can make sure it's really obvious when someone's quoting someone else.
I mean, are you interpreting my quote of what you wrote at the top of this post as me asking myself a question?

>Neural networks are unsupervised learning
Damn I knew Veeky Forums was stupid but damn.

You're using a made up distinction between "able" and "capable" that doesn't actually exist in consensus reality.
Also even that word issue aside your idea itself isn't even coherent.

"Quantum consciousness" is one of the shittiest ideas I've ever heard of.
It's super-transparent what the people arguing for this are doing is taking the most abstract / inexpressible without formal education and higher maths sort of subject matter they're aware of and then deliberately exploiting the lack of immediate layman-friendly clarity so they can fill in the blanks with whatever magical bullshit they feel like.
It's right there in the title of that cult brainwashing movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?"
(Wouldn't have even dignified this movie with a minute's worth of my viewing time except that I was forced to watch it in some retarded roastie professor's philosophy course)
They're saying "nobody knows anything because some things are complicated and counter-intuitive, therefore I'm allowed to posit any ridiculous fantasy accounts for how things work that I want."

It doesnt exist (yet)

Why am i wrong.
>

>"Quantum consciousness" is one of the shittiest ideas I've ever heard of.

>quantum mechanics and consciousness are both weird and therefore equivalent

Posting this image is a very good indicator that you haven't actually read that book.

There is an entire section on super AI and the singularity in that book.

If someone came up to you and said "1 + 1 = 3" completely seriously and not joking at all would you explain to them why they are incorrect or just assume they haven't looked into what they are talking about at even the most introductory level and walk away.