To A and B: human babies exit the womb with pre-baked intelligent reflexes. These are so distinct and ubiquitous, they are used to test the health of newborns (

To A and B: human babies exit the womb with pre-baked intelligent reflexes. These are so distinct and ubiquitous, they are used to test the health of newborns (eg rooting for a nipple, closing into a fist, etc.) Models are static. You read in the training set, you write out the weights. No functional default to build upon. To C: to create truly original output would be to ponder something into existence that wasn't presented to you prior. To reach nonsensical conclusions through valid logic [much how children create made-up words (eg "goed" instead of "went") based on the underpinning concepts of language, not regurgitating what was fed to them.] ChatGPT pretends to do this with an RNG. Humans do this through denotation. When ChatGPT accidentally makes up a word, I'll hop on this hype train. And to D: I never presumed to know what AGI will finally look like; only that this isn't going to be what gets us there. If one is going to posit that ChatGPT is a significant step in that direction, the burden of proof is on them, not me. You told me that Russell's teapot is orbiting the sun, and I told you that I don't think it is. Simple as that. Edit: by the way, your idea of intelligence isn't much more than the Turing Test, which we know missed the mark due to a chatbot beating it over a decade ago now. We've realized for a while now that it's much easier to feign intelligence than recreate it.