I argued that a perfect word predictor would need to be intelligent or have infinite memory, and I noted that ChatGPT is not such a thing. The point was that es

I argued that a perfect word predictor would need to be intelligent or have infinite memory, and I noted that ChatGPT is not such a thing. The point was that establishing that ChatGPT is a word predictor is insufficient to disprove that it is intelligent. Your argument is that a fairly reliable word predictor does not need to be intelligent, which I agree with emphatically- a thing being a word predictor most certainly does not prove that it is intelligent. A perfect word predictor would either need to know or deduce properties of your house in order to write an accurate assessment; a fairly reliable one could just fall back on 'fairly' and fail the task. I don't think your criteria for intelligence is sufficient- I would not be at all surprised to learn that GPT-4o could already look at pictures of my house and write an accurate assessment, but that wouldn't convince me it was intelligent. You could do this quite well a decade ago with computer vision and a fill-in-the-blanks document. >this technology is already hitting a wall An aside: I've seen this said a lot and I don't get it. GPT-3.5 is only about 2 years old and turned a toy into a useful tool. GPT-4 was a substantial improvement to output quality and context length and multimodality a half year later. If GPT-5 comes out and it's not a significant improvement or doesn't come out at all by March, that would be evidence that a wall has been hit. But at the moment I can't think of a technology that has improved more in the last 2 years and I don't know where this claim comes from.