[Mentlo]

“This is not philosophy, this text is following in the footsteps of Alan Turing” (paraphrasing) is both incredibly humble (/s) and incredibly dismissive of philosophy as a structured form of generating knowledge.

Putting that to the side - i don’t think I’ll read this fully soon, but the core thesis of “imitation is intelligence” can be easily disproven by a process that exists in society. An actor acting to be a genius is in fact, if they are a good actor, indistinguishable in their appearance to a genius. Yet they are not, in fact, a genius, they’re just good at memorisation. This is a clear showcase that imitation of a level of intelligence does not mean that this level of intelligence is present.

We have fallen into a trap of thinking that answering in plausible sentences is what makes humans intelligent. While in reality we are observing an actor responding from an infinitely large script. What makes humans intelligent (reasoning from first principles and pattern recognition across all the sensory inputs of the world) is still very much out of grasp.

[jonahx]

> An actor acting to be a genius is in fact, if they are a good actor, indistinguishable in their appearance to a genius.

An actor will be distinguishable from a genius in their ability to answer questions and generate new insights. If the imitation was actually perfect, the actor would be able to do these things, and would in fact be a genius.