So in summary you are saying they used "intuition" wrongly, while subsequently saying that it's really hard to say what intuition is objectively, and when someo

So in summary you are saying they used "intuition" wrongly, while subsequently saying that it's really hard to say what intuition is objectively, and when someone pointed out that their understanding of intuition does at least partially match what is insinuated in the paper you continue saying "yeah but when talking about AI all of this is really complicated, please be more concrete" I really have no idea what this is adding to the discussion, except for talking down to the authors which, in your opinion, have misused a word that you yourself find hard to define.. Edit: typo