[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.

[empath75]

Your comment is a perfect example of a human hallucinating something and not knowing they are wrong about it. People are confidently wrong about things _all the time_.

[throw310822]

You say this confidently, but you're wrong... ah no wait... ;)

[qsera]

No no, you don't understand. People can misunderstand. But they will not, for example, proceed to drive a car as if they have attended driving lessons when they have not.

They might misremember, but they can know, for sure, if they have NOT come across some information. So if you ask someone if they know where `x` is, they might have came across that info, and still be wrong. But they will know if they have never come across it.

A neural network will happily produce an output when when the input is completely out of range of the training data.

[UltraSane]

Some people can reliably assess what the know, others cannot