The article ends like this: "As Cowen puts it, 'what are humans still good for?'"
For the most part, programmers program better than programs. It's amazing to think about the possibilities as this statement becomes less true.
For the most part, programmers program better than programs. It's amazing to think about the possibilities as this statement becomes less true.
But can a computer write code from scratch as good as a human? No(t yet).
That part of your sentence is wrong, the rest (minds are nothing more than computers running on substrate) is wrong or meaningless, too. It just so happens that computation of the Turing model is one of the things human minds do, and badly. It's very much not the only thing. (Unless you mean computer in a sufficiently vague and abstract way as for the statement to be vacuous.)
The biological method of information processing, calcium ion transfer, is demonstrably orders of magnitude slower than artificially devised methods by semiconductors. So this is physically not optimal and easily proved. So that part of my sentence is correct.
The rest of your comment is too ill-defined to refute, unless you hold that there is some non-material, extra-physical quantity of mental process that cannot be duplicated by engineering.
The optimization is a subtle one but extremely powerful, and it will be a while before we can pack equivalent computational power in something of similar size and power requirements.
Think about the amount of hardware required to simulate a cat brain at reduced speed, then think about the amount of hardware in a cat brain.
I think it will happen eventually, but given the long record of failed predictions in this area, I think that a blanket statement that it's going to be a "short matter of time" is unwarranted.