[markmaglana]

> Something that is able to simulate having a theory of mind sufficiently well does actually have a theory of mind.

That presupposes that our existing tools for detecting the presence of ToM are 100% accurate. Might it be possible that they are imprecise and it’s only now that their critical flaws have been exposed?

[int_19h]

But if our understanding of ToM is so flawed in practice, what does it say about all the confident proclamations that AIs "aren't real" because they don't have it?

[markmaglana]

Your question aligns with the argument I'm trying to make which is: If it turns out that our understanding of ToM is wrong, should we be making proclamations about--whether for or against--the real-ness of our current AI implementations?