Parent is saying that with something as sophisticated as intelligence it's not enough to say that if it behaves like a duck it's a duck (which is what your seem to be saying and which the parent calls a 0-day).
There are some really good bulshitters who have led smart people into deep trouble. These bulshitters behaved really like ducks but they weren't ducks. The duck test just isn't good enough.
The -1 day is where people say that because LLMs behave like humans then humans must be based on the same tech. I just wonder if these people have ever debugged a complex system only to discover that their initial model of how it worked was way off.
That is a new definition of intelligence that you are using. You are saying that even when something can outperform humans in the SAT or other tests of intelligence, it isn't actually intelligent due to it not being a carbon based lifeform
There are some really good bulshitters who have led smart people into deep trouble. These bulshitters behaved really like ducks but they weren't ducks. The duck test just isn't good enough.
The -1 day is where people say that because LLMs behave like humans then humans must be based on the same tech. I just wonder if these people have ever debugged a complex system only to discover that their initial model of how it worked was way off.