Do you have any examples of approaches that are indefinitely extendable?

Another way to get at the same point, I think, is - Are there things that we (contemporary humans) will never understand (from a Quora post)?

I think we can get some plausible insight on this by comparing an average person to the most brilliant minds today - or comparing the earliest recorded examples of reasoning in history to that of modernity. My intuition is that there are many concepts (quantum physics is a popular example, though I'm not sure it's a good one) that even most people today, and certainly in the past, will never comprehend, at least without massive amounts of effort, and possibly even then. They simply require too much raw cognitive capacity to appreciate. This is at least implicit in the Singularity hypothesis.

As to the energy issue, I don't see any reason to think that such super-human cognition systems necessarily requires more energy - though they may at first.

Common sense and natural language understanding are suspected to be 'AI complete'. (p14) (Recall that 'AI complete' means 'basically equivalent to solving the whole problem of making a human-level AI')

Do you think they are? Why?

What did you find least persuasive in this week's reading?

How should someone familiar with past work in AI use that knowledge judge how much work is left to be done before reaching human-level AI, or human-level ability at a particular kind of task?