Thanks for posting that here. He doesn't offer a voting system, so I couldn't downvote his statement directly, 1) for being a tremendous strawman. Nobody said

Thanks for posting that here. He doesn't offer a voting system, so I couldn't downvote his statement directly, 1) for being a tremendous strawman. Nobody said it can't still be useful or world-changing, only that it's a superficial presentation of what it means to "understand" something, 2) enhancing human intelligence isn't de facto intelligence. My calculator is not intelligent, but it certainly helped "change the world, students cheat, researchers research, yada yada yada" 3) Try getting it to demonstrate object permanence. It will only "seem-to-fail-epically". There are no "things" underlying the terms it uses, and denotation is the crux of language, not syntactic structure. Chomsky himself long ago demonstrated that nailing syntax does not nail meaning: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.