The argument motivates why this alleged duck isn't walking and talking like a duck. For sure, if it does, then it isn't relevant. The "duck" here is a person,

The argument motivates why this alleged duck isn't walking and talking like a duck. For sure, if it does, then it isn't relevant. The "duck" here is a person, and "walking and talking" are literal. Where is the machine that participates in my environment, with me, imagines/believes/advices/speculates/cares about what I am doing? (And so on). There is no such machine. The "quacking" we have isn't the quacking of a duck. It's a stupid buzzer that has been mashed too many times and a foolish audience who has never thought much about the sound of a duck.