Appreciate the response, and apologies for being needlessly sharp myself. Thank you for bringing the temperature down.
> Are we treating an arbitrary ontological assertion as if it’s a formal argument that needs to be heroically refuted?
The formality of the paper already supposes a level of rigor. The problem at its core, is that p_intelligent(x: X) where X ∈ {human, AI} is not a demonstrable scissor by just proving p_intelligent(AI) = false. Without walking us through the steps that p_intelligent(human) = true, we cannot be sure that the predicate isn't simply always false.
Without demonstrating that humans satisfy the claims we can't be sure if the results are vacuously true because nothing, in fact, can satisfy the standard.
These aren't heroic refutations, they're table stakes.
> Are we treating an arbitrary ontological assertion as if it’s a formal argument that needs to be heroically refuted?
The formality of the paper already supposes a level of rigor. The problem at its core, is that p_intelligent(x: X) where X ∈ {human, AI} is not a demonstrable scissor by just proving p_intelligent(AI) = false. Without walking us through the steps that p_intelligent(human) = true, we cannot be sure that the predicate isn't simply always false.
Without demonstrating that humans satisfy the claims we can't be sure if the results are vacuously true because nothing, in fact, can satisfy the standard.
These aren't heroic refutations, they're table stakes.