No. We’re back to my earlier point of you and I have fundamentally different understanding of cognition, intelligence, and learning. And genuinely not trying to be condescending, but I suspect you don’t have a good grounding in the technology we’re discussing
Yeah, that definitely came off as condescending. Especially on HN, where pretty much everyone here has a grounding in the technology we're discussing. In any case, your arguments have not dealt with technology at all, but on hand-wavy distinctions like "temporality."
Anyway, to the larger point: I agree that "you and I have fundamentally different understanding of cognition, intelligence, and learning" but your inability to explain your own understanding of these terms and why they are relevant is why your arguments are unpersuasive.
Why not? If humans store data in their brains, isn't that learning? Of course data can include skills and connections, for both humans and AIs.
> and guess what, context still fills up.
Human memory also has limits.
Sorry, but I really don't see how the distinctions you're trying to make even exist, much less qualify as markers of intelligence.