My opinion is as long the dont solve hard problems they are just probability .

For example one of those top ten mathematical problems. Humans solved a few of those, lets challenge AI

By this metric the vast majority of humans are “just probability” too.

I think it’s not a very good metric.

Hmm is see it this way. Humans are a network of information sharing that could solve this problems. Computers are the same and should also Solve hard problems.

And yes, sadly, many humans are just probalility in my eyes.

Didn't blow mine, even though it involved a howitzer! It's obviously operating on a higher level than "what was the previous word" but doesn't exactly feel like high level reasoning: when prompted for similarities it elides "inflated" with "blew up" to seed a paragraph (rather than to crack a corny joke, which is the only context I can imagine a human in possession of knowledge of what a howitzer and a beach ball doing likewise!), adds some sentences consistent with sentences in its corpus with "blowing up" and "loading" as the respective verbs and appends a sentence which states that it's tenuous, because howitzer and beach balls and inflating and loading verbs aren't often found in close proximity in its corpus (and caveating stuff clearly was well rewarded in ChatGPT's training; it's almost comically quick to do so in every single non-trivial answer)

Impressive that it does so in coherent English, but I'm not convinced it's in any danger of understanding firearms or fun beyond realising sentence forms those words would be a good fit and poor fit for.

I posted an excerpt from ChatGPT a couple of days ago where it stated - in an identical format to its previous two correct answers - that 355 was a prime number because it wasn't divisible 5, and that's the sort of problem that Turing machines are known to be able to completely and accurately model