> Y'know what else is not falsifiable? "That AI doesn't understand what it's doing".

  > seriously considered quacks like a duck argument has been won by the AIs and no-one cares.

Often when people find that their initial beliefs are wrong or not precise enough then they update their beliefs. You seem to be calling this a flaw. It's not like the definitions are dramatically changing, they're refining. There's a big difference

My first post here is me explaining that I have a non-standard definition of what ‘understanding’ means, which helps me avoid an apparently thorny issue. I’m literally here offering a refinement of a definition.

This is a weird conversation.