I feel like this article doesn't really contribute much to the discourse and is somewhat spoiled by the author's biases. I think the point about lacking precis

I feel like this article doesn't really contribute much to the discourse and is somewhat spoiled by the author's biases. I think the point about lacking precise language to describe LLMs is reasonable, then the author follows it up with claims that the machines can't count and that they are incapable of math (easily disproven). Then says "talking rock" is a better alternative, which to the average person would be even more confusing. Then says AI researchers tend to not consider LLMs AI (like.. what?) The point on Turing's Imitation Game was reasonable too, then confidently proclaims LLMs are not doing anything intelligent and are pure mimicry. Intelligence is notoriously poorly defined, and the stochastic parrot meme has already died now that RL enables out of distribution behavior. The chat point and talking dog syndrome are both reasonable and I generally agree with them.