Yes, words matter. Here are some of mine: > Their thesis may well be right but this example is completely wrong And then I explain in detail how it is wrong.

Yes, words matter. Here are some of mine: > Their thesis may well be right but this example is completely wrong And then I explain in detail how it is wrong. The words you quote (notably, the word "want") are not in the statement from TFA that I addressed, and I'm not about to address this goalpost moving here. I do understand (especially from Daniel Dennett's Intentional Stance) how AI agents can be viewed as intentional systems, but the errors in the text I quoted are of a different sort. And again, > All that said, there ARE "relentless" systems with goal-driven behavior But a program that does no more than always play the move with the highest Stockfish eval isn't one, any more than a program playing "pick the higher number" that always selects your last move + 1. "It's diabolical! It's relentless! It wants to win and it doesn't care about me!" If they want to drive home their point then they need more compelling examples.