> To forbid imperfect knowledge acquisition is to forbid knowledge, for it is a step on the way to knowledge. I hope you agree. I do not agree because the stat

> To forbid imperfect knowledge acquisition is to forbid knowledge, for it is a step on the way to knowledge. I hope you agree. I do not agree because the statement is silly and wrong. You've made no real argument that anything is being forbidden. No one is proposing "forbidding" AI. Second, "forbidding imperfect knowledge acquisition" (a pretty tortured construction in the first place) is not the same thing as forbidding knowledge, because you can always get the knowledge elsewhere. It'll be more accurate too! > Consider that Joe Blow may only need slight correction once passing the mishmash of expertise fragments he gets from anywhere that humans are great at filling in. This is basically gibberish, and it seems to me that you're happy to talk about expertise in the abstract, probably because giving concrete examples about what you mean would require actually defending your ideas! > Feel free to talk about anything you feel I've omitted. You're omitting a lot, and hiding your lack of actual knowledge on the topic with confident pronouncements and over-flowery phrasing. Not unlike some generative models I know! You accuse OP of avoiding a definition for intelligence to serve his argument when it seems you're far more guilty of this.