> Gut feeling based on playing with it. Ok, your phrasing made it sound like some article or material had convinced you of this opinion on my first reading, no

> Gut feeling based on playing with it. Ok, your phrasing made it sound like some article or material had convinced you of this opinion on my first reading, now I understand. This is kind of my point about 80 links though - you're using a definition of "cognitive tasks" that more closely resembles knowledge, and then you're letting your personal feelings about profundity guide your conclusions on said cognition. I don't deny that the machine can output pretty words and has a breadth of knowledge to put us each to shame on some simple queries, but "cognition in a 4000 token window" is an incredibly large place and I don't even understand how you would be able to claim a machine has above-human-average cognition based solely on your own interactions... That's a pretty crazy leap. PS: I saw the downvotes, I was downvoted for questioning the validity of information that was actually just pure conjecture, be better with your votes