[qsera]

>It is impossible to accurately imitate the action of intelligent beings without being intelligent.

Wait what? So a robot who is accurately copying the actions of an intelligent human, is intelligent?

[empath75]

That was probably phrased poorly. If a robot can independently accurately do what an intelligent person would do when placed in a novel situation, then yes, I would say it is intelligent.

If it's just basically being a puppet, then no. You tell me what claude code is more like, a puppet, or a person?

[qsera]

It is neither puppet or a person. It is a computer program.

[throw310822]

As much as a bundle of an mp3 decoder and a terabyte of mp3 music are "just a program".

[UltraSane]

How can you distinguish intelligence form a sufficiently accurate imitation of intelligence?

[slopinthebag]

By "sufficiently accurate" do you mean identical? Because if so, it's not an imitation of intelligence at all, and the question is thus nonsensical.

[UltraSane]

"it's not an imitation of intelligence at all"

But that is the key insight, how can you tell when an imitation of intelligence becomes the real thing?

[qsera]

When it stops hallucinating without explicit checks for that!

[empath75]

Making mistakes does not make people unintelligent.

[qsera]

People don't hallucinate. That is they can pretty reliably assess if they know or don't know something.