Ignoring meta-physical theories trying to explain how humans are "unique", if they have a "soul", if they are different to other animals on this planet or indeed different to any aliens (the metric being some kind of turing-completeness test), I only see the difference between any AI and the human brain as quantitative, not qualitative. I.e. it is a matter of time and resources (if/when available) to reach the performance of the human brain. There is no other factor to stop this other than lack of resources (including: "there are not enough grains in the universe to fill a chessboard"/paraphrased).

I know the above is quite simplistic, but it looks to me that AI is on its way to parity.

What can stop this is Capitalism. Whatever Capitalism achieves in the short-term turns into ashes in the long-term. Of course what to the masses are ashes, can be diamonds for those "non-masses". But it's bubbling already given these massive, unrealistic contracts OpenAI does with Oracle for infrastructure, etc.

I can also answer this question by means of another question: what's your view on AI producing music, films, literature? What about flirting AI assistants? Or AI platonic partners? My answer: simply unacceptable.

It would be interesting to see if AI coding assistants subscribe to Perl's TIMTOWTDI or Python's TIO1WTDI/TINA. I would think the former given how eagerly the bots suck wisdom out of this Monastery.

Another thought: do you think Larry Wall's "the three great virtues of a programmer: laziness, impatience, and hubris" will be taken on-board by AI coding assistants? I think not, that would be political incorrectness for the current "west"-trained AI assistants or anti-conformist for the "east"-trained AI assistants - blasphemy (I can not compute!).

bw, bliako