For someone so dismissive of "neurotypicals" you did the neurotypical thing and drop a hot take before clicking the link.
I've seen transcripts of people interacting with ChatGPT who were obviously seduced by it and in a very giddy state, having so much fun because ChatGPT was playing an extended "game" with them that it didn't bother them at all that ChatGPT was spouting wrong answers.
A major complaint I've had about the social sphere is that I seem to get the same result if I am 20% right or 50% right or 80% right or 95% right or 99.8%, it is just exhausting and I can never be good enough and I'm frankly envious that people see more of a glimmer of light behind that thing's "eyes" than they do behind mine.
The core thing about neurotypicality isn't so much that they get the wrong answers but that they get the same answer whether it is right or wrong. For a long time I thought the basis of the "language instinct" is a derangement about reasoning with uncertainty that causes the grammar representation to collapse into a low-dimensioned subspace which is learnable with a limited amount of data. I wouldn't be surprised at all if other animals could beat us at rock-scissors-paper or poker if they could understand the rules of the game. The success of LLMs might give us some insight in this area although they are working with so much more data that Chomsky's old "poverty of the stimulus" argument might not apply.
The part I was responding to was this:
> when the duck actually has read the Internet and has useful suggestions and ideas back to share
I think that if it does that, it's legitimately less useful as a rubber duck. I'm not saying it isn't useful -- it's just not useful as a rubber duck anymore.