Nobody was confused or misled by what was written. We all understand what is meant. I can’t even call this pedantry—it’s just you asking everyone to subscribe to your particular desired style of talking about this stuff.
> the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
The first gave "the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason", by which no, these bots are not intelligent.
Agentic systems do this all the time. For example, I can point an agent at my codebase, and it will learn, understand, and make judgements based on that input. If this weren't happening, then agentic coding wouldn't work.
Same for countless computer programs from Excel to Google web search. Intelligence has nothing to do with it.
Throw an unimaginable amount of computer power at a problem, and there will always be people who cannot imagine the results to be anything but the creations of intelligence.
I also have a so called "pocket calculator" left over from when I went to school. Is this false? Have I been fooled by a little box of logic gates?
That half-adder circuit in there is especially suss. It's really just manipulating 1s and 0s, but -and I've been explicitly told this- no one cares how it actually does it; so long as the truth table matches up. There is no understanding of mathematics going on.
There is no single transistor in the whole thing that knows how to do so much as add 1+1. If I put it in the chinese room, I still wouldn't know how it did it. Clearly the entire premise must be false! ;-)
These kinds of stories probably read very differently for someone who uses Opus and Fable agents all day and goes "ohhh, I saw this in miniature last week; this and this and this must have happened" , vs someone who tried free-tier Gemini flash one rainy Sunday, got hallucinated at, and concludes it must all be a scam.
"so long as the truth table matches up." Yup. Now try getting your chatbot's output to match up.
Your calculator was designed to tell truth. Your chatbot was designed to tell a mash up of whatever its creators managed to scrape from the internet.
The mash-up of the entire internet is the mechanism by which they attempt to achieve the goal, not the goal itself. And it's only the first training step
This is all without mentioning the fact that articles with drivel like "the AI messed up and then lied about it" implies a reasoning ability which, as far as I understand, is not there at all. But writing this way shapes people's perception of how "AI" works.
Moreover this implies, actually requires, intent to deceive - which these so-called AIs do not and cannot have. Their only "intent" is to maximise the credibility of their output.