Terr_ was agreeing with you and highlighting how old the debate is.

Highlighting, yes, agreeing, no.

For my original earlier reply, the main subtext would be: "Your complaint is ridiculously biased."

For the later reply about chess, perhaps: "You're asserting that tricking, amazing, or beating a human is a reliable sign of human-like intelligence. We already know that is untrue from decades of past experience."

	▲	CamperBob2 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		You're asserting that tricking, amazing, or beating a human is a reliable sign of human-like intelligence. I don't know who's asserting that (other than Alan Turing, I guess); certainly not me. Humans are, if anything, easier to fool than our current crude AI models are. Heck, ELIZA was enough to fool non-specialist humans. In any case, nobody was "tricked" at the IMO. What happened there required legitimate reasoning abilities. The burden of proof falls decisively on those who assert otherwise.