> I doubt you can even define intelligence sufficiently to argue this point.

Agreed.

> But you claimed that humans aren't unique.

I'm arguing that it is up to us to prove that they are interestingly unique in the context of this post. Which is pretty narrow - how do we solve problems?

The theme I was arguing against that I've seen repeated throughout this thread is that AIs are just recombining things they've absorbed and throwing those recombinations at the wall until they see what sticks.

It raises the question of why we presume that humans do things any differently, when it seems quite clear that we can only ever possibly do the same, unless we are claiming that knowledge of the universe can enter the human mind through some means other than through the known senses.

Not at all disputing that humans possess many capabilities that AIs do not.

> Do you ever wonder why that is? I often wonder why tech has so many reductionist, materialist, and quite frankly anti-human, thinkers.

I touched on this elsewhere, will go ahead and paste it here again:

The fundamental thing I'm speaking out against is the arrogance of human exceptionalism.

This whole debate about what it means to be intelligent or human just seems like we're making the same mistakes we've made over and over.

Earth as the center of the universe, sun as the center of the universe, man as the only animal with consciousness and intellect, the anthropomorphic nature of the majority of the deities in our religions and the anthropocentric purpose of the universe within those religions...

I think this desire to believe that we are special, that the universe in some way does ultimately revolve around us, is seemingly a deep need in our psyche but any material analysis of our universe shows that it is extremely unlikely that we hold that position.