So the actors who portrait great thinkers are great thinkers?
replyNo, actors recite a pre-written script. But scriptwriters do have to be great thinkers in order to know what the great thinker would actually say.
reply>It is impossible to accurately imitate the action of intelligent beings without being intelligent.
replyWait what? So a robot who is accurately copying the actions of an intelligent human, is intelligent?
That was probably phrased poorly. If a robot can independently accurately do what an intelligent person would do when placed in a novel situation, then yes, I would say it is intelligent.
replyIf it's just basically being a puppet, then no. You tell me what claude code is more like, a puppet, or a person?
How can you distinguish intelligence form a sufficiently accurate imitation of intelligence?
replyBy "sufficiently accurate" do you mean identical? Because if so, it's not an imitation of intelligence at all, and the question is thus nonsensical.
reply"it's not an imitation of intelligence at all"
replyBut that is the key insight, how can you tell when an imitation of intelligence becomes the real thing?
An unintelligent device can accurately imitate the action of intelligent beings within a given scope, in the same way an actor can accurately imitate the action of a fictional character in a given scope (the stage or camera) without actually being that character.
replyIf the idea is that something cannot accurately replicate the entirety of intelligence without being intelligent itself, then perhaps. But that isn't really what people talk about with LLMs given their obvious limitations.