What? No, life is much too short to pay attention to marketing fluff when I'm not yet interested in the product. Do you pay deep attention to everything you read? You need a spam filter for the brain.

It is an endless stream of words that actually says nothing about the product.

You may have missed the point. It's not that this archaeum is becoming turning into a virus and some single celled organism needs to hide its wife, hide its daughter. The point is that viruses can come from parasitic archaea as they abandon unnecessary organelles! If this process takes another million years, this discovery will be no less newsworthy.

It's pretty well established that that has no answer.

No more or less intelligent than random chance. By definition. I'm not arguing about the quantitative truth, just that the words fit.

This is an interesting topic, but how can you have an illusion of consciousness? To have a bona fide illusion (as opposed to making a mistake or being wrong about a proposition), must one not be conscious?

No, the fact that it (sometimes) answers hard questions correctly makes it (somewhat) intelligent.

Its problem is that it doesn't seem to analyze its learning like humans do, so it seems not to be capable of saying it doesn't know something. It also seems to take marketing materials as seriously as it takes textbooks. But if these problems are fixed, there will probably still be components that operate based on statistics. As an aside, I'm reasonably sure you order and choose your words based on statistics. Otherwise you'd sound dumb, or like yoda. (I'm assuming you didn't spend an hour looking up words and diagramming sentences before you posted.)

Also, a simulation of intelligence is the same thing as intelligence. Intelligence is a kind of competence. It's not rocket science to test this. To everybody whining about computer programs not being intelligent: the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

You can, you just need an infinite number of five year-olds.

If you studied computer science and didn't forget all of it, the article is a tease.

This is gibberish. I'm pretty sure every phrase that says "little space", "more time", etc., should be replaced by the name of a complexity class or a space complexity class.

Though perhaps it's too hard to really explain it in the way that P and NP are usually explained (with a simple example).

Any time you say "I see a signal so it's time to sell/buy", the actual time was weeks ago. Unless you are an electronic trader responding to freshly published information.

That's not saying you shouldn't sell. But this news could already be built into the price, and it could be time to buy. It's really hard to tell.

Can't an original asker reject an edit? I've done this. It's satisfying!

Also, is there anything a LLM could say that would convince you it was intelligent? If not, I suggest you are arguing philosophy, rather than the LLM's capability. I want to know whether the Chinese room actually produces correct Chinese, while you are just trying to x-ray through the walls.

Alright, right. I suspect the place where we disagree is the relevance of consciousness to this issue. Though as you said, it is closely related to the hard problem, so I'll just leave it there.

That's such a seductive idea, but it has some assumptions baked into it about what consciousness (and self) are. Rather than try to pick it apart, let me suggest a fun alternative: put the brain and the computer in the same place (put the brain inside the computer processor or vice versa depending on size), wait for the brain to go to sleep, then wake up the computer.

When the brain wakes up, it is now the copy. Oops.