> I think you're getting a bit lost in the debate!

This is the second time you've made accusations, which at this point feels like you're gaslighting me but I'll assume good intent. Here's what you claim:

> At no point did I claim that there is any reason to believe that human intelligence is a stochastic parrot.

Here's what you said:

> 1. Current gen AI may only seem like a stochastic parrot, but there's no reason to believe that human intelligence isn't just a really fancy stochastic parrot.

That’s not what they said, they said that’s a common argument that’s made and said it’s flawed. I think they’re saying arguments in both directions are flawed - it’s equally unconvincing to say humans are a stochastic parrot and to claim that they’re not because we fundamentally don’t actually know and don’t have good ways of describing let alone measuring consciousness and self awareness.

> > At no point did I claim that there is any reason to believe that human intelligence is a stochastic parrot.

> Here's what you said:

> > 1. Current gen AI may only seem like a stochastic parrot, but there's no reason to believe that human intelligence isn't just a really fancy stochastic parrot.

Exactly. I did not say there is reason to believe human intelligence is advanced parroting. I did say there is no reason to believe that it isn't.

Those are two totally different things. Perhaps a simpler example would help:

"I have no reason to believe that you aren't Australian."

"I have reason to believe you are Australian."

See?