We are at really at unheard of levels of hype at this point. This is such a strange and rushed piece that seems to forget to argue, much less say, anything at a

We are at really at unheard of levels of hype at this point. This is such a strange and rushed piece that seems to forget to argue, much less say, anything at all. The point of the chinese room is that the rule-following work involved for the subject in the room is feasible whatever their prior knowledge is, not that they simply don't know Chinese! Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I can't really know because the author moves on so quickly, we aren't even sure what the commitments are that we are making. (What is the compression scheme of general intelligence? Is there some common idea we don't even have a TB up there??) The author says: "What is left of rationally defensible skepticism?" But they seem to have forgotten to say anything at all about this skepticism itself other than they used to be skeptic, but have been "too surprised" to stay that way for long. Which at once seems to misunderstand the fundamental epistemological position, as well as forget to even articulate what we are even being skeptical about outside of the terms they are laying out! Is it that the models have "understanding," using their qualified definition from the earlier section, or something else? Like, just please give the reader something to hold on to! What are you arguing for? Like I get that we are Rokko's-basilisking ourselves into a million and a half blog posts like this, but at least spend some time with it. Its ok to still care about what you write, and it should still be rewarding to be thoughtful. You owe it to the human readers, even if an AI can't tell a difference.