I asked the author of the comment to give me an example of the many "intellectual" tasks that can be done by "systems" that are "internally simple" (what does "

I asked the author of the comment to give me an example of the many "intellectual" tasks that can be done by "systems" that are "internally simple" (what does "simple" mean?) but "large" (with or without human intervention?). I then pointed to the known (and serious) issue of hallucinations; how does this all fit with the author's "reductionist" model of much human thought being "just autocomplete"? I don't feel threatened as my previous comment suggests; I just think that human thought is not "just autocomplete".