Chopping up sequences of film, and stiching them together, based on their prior similarity isn't making a movie -- and that's all you have here. People wrote po

Chopping up sequences of film, and stiching them together, based on their prior similarity isn't making a movie -- and that's all you have here. People wrote poetry -- *for the first time* -- to say something about their own environment, that they are present in. All you have here is a system which has remembered a compressed representation of these poems and stiches them together to fool you. It really is a kind of proto-psychosis to think this machine has written a poem. It has generated the text of a poem. > quantifiable predictions of behaviour that you want to see This is trivial. I ask the machine a large number of ordinary questions, eg., "what do you think about what i'm wearing?", "what would it take to change your mind on whether murder is justified?", "do you think you'd like new york?", "could you pass me the salt?", etc. -- a trivial infinity of questions lifted from the daily life of language users. The machine cannot answer any of those questions. All it will do is generate some text on the occasion that the machine sees that text. This isn't an answer. That isnt the question. The question isnt "summarise a million documents and report an on-average plausible answer to these questions". When I ask a person any of those questions, if they did that, they wouldnt be answering them. This is trivial to observe. These systems are just taking modes() of subsets of historical data. That's just what they are. The appearence of their using language is an illusion To use language is to have something to say, to wish to talk about something. When i say, "I liked the movie!" I am not summarising a million reviews and finding an average sentence. I am thinking about my experience of the movie, and generating a public sharable "text" that aims to communicate what i actually think. *THAT* is language. Language is your intention to speak *ABOUT* something, and the capacity to generate a public shared set of words which communicate what you are talking about. Any process which begins *without anything to say* cannot ever reach langauge as a capacity. Langauge, as a capacity, begins by being in the world. No summary of the public statmenets of past speakers has anything to do with being in the world; and having things to say. Chopping that up and stiching it together is a trick. And this is trivial to show empirically. It is only by having absolutely no study of langauge use can anyone claim that text documents have anything ot do with it. IT's mumbohjumbo.