[antibasilisk]

>and they're bad-looking when not.

They are sometimes bad looking, and they are always better than randomness, which does indicate understanding even if the conclusions are faulty.

>What "emerges" from AI is not from AI; its from the properties of the data its using

This is squabbling over semantics. If the properties of the data are used to the effect of displaying intelligence, then the fact is that what you are looking at is intelligence.

If I define a word I have never seen before using deductive logic according to the passage I find it in, I've still acquired an understanding of the word, even though I've not referred to anything external.

[mjburgess]

> If I define a word I have never seen before using deductive logic according to the passage I find it in

uhuh. And have you studied anything in the area of the intelligence of really-existing systems? (ie., animals)

For sure, bugs bunny appears witty; and chatgpt, intelligent.

But you know: only because their writers are.

[antibasilisk]

Reasoning does not take place in Bugs Bunny, while reasoning demonstrably takes place in ChatGPT