[avereveard]

Why? Nothing in the if sustain the conclusion. Also we did not emerge because of ourselves, so our intelligence cannot be postulated unique because of that. Absence of history is no proof either way, and we do have history of intelligence in other pila as well here in earth.

[shinycode]

I input my comment in claude.ai, after refining the discussion with the other comments, Claude reached the conclusion :

« In conclusion, describing current AI systems as "intelligent" is indeed debatable. They are more accurately described as highly advanced information processing and content generation systems based on statistical models. The term "artificial intelligence" could be considered more of a marketing term or an aspirational goal rather than an accurate description of the current state of technology. »

The subterfuge, or advanced method of information processing, that is doing the magic for the debate to be possible is the transformers.

So the whole debate probably doesn’t make any sense in the first place because we can’t even define precisely intelligence in that context and there is a prism and we compare things that can’t and shouldn’t be compared in the first place

[avereveard]

you entered your bias in a statistical parrot, and received your bias back

[shinycode]

There you close the debate. It’s a statistical parrot. No need to discuss about any emergence of anything or compare it to anything

[avereveard]

The absence of general intelligence in this iteration of the technology isn't a general principle about agi

[shinycode]

Absolutely. We’ll see what’s going on when AGI comes up. Maybe I won’t be alive by then so no need to stress right now.