The point isn't "physical simulator" like supercomputers, it's "physical simulator" like the human brain.
The simple counter argument is that they're claiming that there is potential for general purpose physical simulation. So please don't play with words. I thought we were supposed to be talking about something concrete instead of whatever you wanted to twist things into to suit your purpose
either that, or they're not qualified to distinguish between the two options you presented, which is obviously not true
right?
the article's bazillion references have nothing to do with physics
nor is there any substance behind the claim of physical simulation
what is actually being simulated is synthesis of any video
it's not that complicated and you and they must know it too
it's double speak easily seen from miles away
scammers have to downvote