Pretty much :-) Text generation (and rudimental comprehension) is perceived to be a sign of higher intelligence, simply because it's our natural human UI. Iron

Pretty much :-) Text generation (and rudimental comprehension) is perceived to be a sign of higher intelligence, simply because it's our natural human UI. Ironically, we tend to limit our imagination on what _we_ could do that computers won't, while simultaneously overuse it to imagine what they _could_ do but won't. One very good example of this is humor - LLM models at present are terrible at generating anything but dad jokes, and are even worse at their attempts to explain "deep" humor. Gary Marcus had a recent episode on it, very interesting insights from top experts in the field: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/can-ai-make-you-laugh/id1532110146?i=1000613196164 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/can-ai-make-you-laugh/.... They make a case that LLMs were specifically optimized for text generation and not explanation, while humans are almost the opposite. I believe somewhere in there is also our tendency for confirmation bias and overlooking imperfections where we don't expect some. AI may generate nonsense details, but when we look at the overall text, we don't notice them since we're just awed by the output, and think if it looks flawless it must be flawless. Same thing as with mentalist tricks. And finally, we only think of our intelligence as thoughts carefully animated into sentences, while there's this whole "iceberg" level of feelings and unconscious cognition, which we don't even notice ourselves, but it would be extremely hard to reproduce in AI and we have not even the slightest idea how.